TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (11) TMI 1371
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ircumstances of the case. 2. That learned CIT (A) grossly erred in making enhancements of Rs. 11,26,600/- & of Rs. 6,97,400/- by disallowing the very incurrence of said expenditures, being incurred wholly in connection to transfer of property and improvement of same u/s 48 of the Act, without rejecting accounts, without conducting any direct enquiry or finding any material against the assessee and despite accepting the accounts and verification of said exp. by Ld. AO, hence enhancement is inherently illegal. 3. That in addition to above, learned CIT (A) further erred in disallowing the expenditure Rs. 11,26,600/-, being payment of stamp duty, thereby making an enhancement of Rs. 11,26,600/- after not sustaining the attraction of 50C a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....000/-, assessee had not filed any appeal and on balance addition of Rs. 13,35,769/-, which was contested before CIT(A) Rs. 2,77,335/- on account of applicability of Section 50C was deleted by the CIT(A). Balance addition of Rs. 10,58,434/- being interest on borrowed funds capitalized is made by AO. AO disallowed interest on bank loan taken for property as the same is not allowable u/s 48, beside assessee claimed deduction of interest U/s 24 in AY 05-06/06-07. This addition is contested by assessee in terms of his ground 2 before first appellate authority in which he also relied on 99 ITR 148 (DEL) which was sustained by the first appellate authority. However ld. CIT(A) dismissed this ground without discussed this ground summarily without pa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of Ground No. 4 & 5 of the appeal of the assessee, the ld. AR submitted that the interest paid on housing loan is part of cost of acquisition and same should be allowed U/s 48 of the Act, Further, in earlier two years i.e. AY - 2005-06 & 2006-07 assessee claimed interest U/s 24(b) wrongly and the same was offered for taxation and ultimately disallowed by the authorities, hence addition of Rs. 10,58,434/- is also a case of double taxation. 7. The ld. DR on the other hand, argued in support of enhancement on the basis that payments are made in cash and no proper evidences were filed before ld. CIT(A). He placed reliance on the orders of the authorities below for disallowance of interest. 8. We have heard and considered the arguments advanc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... incurred for the development of the property which are sufficient evidence for incurrence of said expenses. All the bills are bearing name/address/phone no. of the supplier and most of the bills are bearing printed numbers as well as item supplied like rodi, cement etc. Beside AO has not rejected accounts and specifically accepted these expenses. In any case in case of any doubt ld. CIT(A) had to conduct inquiry from the suppliers or at least had to enquire from the assessee about his doubts as onus was on him to prove expenses bogus. His observation about rented property is wrong on the record. The ld. A.R has placed reliance on the various decisions in support of claim of expenditure of Rs. 11,26,600/- and 6,97,400/- which are found rele....