TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (12) TMI 918
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in law and or on facts in not allowing sufficient opportunity to the appellant before disposing of the appeal. The details/evidence for the appeal could not be produced for the reasons stated in the statement of facts. Thus there was gross violation off the principles of natural justice. 2.1 The Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 8,48, 600/- to ward is .capital gain on sale of house property. The Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and or on facts in upholding that the claim of construction of 2 rooms, compound wall, and fencing to the house property at 64, Vasantkunj, Paldi, Ahmedabad was non-genuine and thereby rejecting the entire claim of cost of improvement made by the appellant while computing capital gain on sale of said property. 2.2 That in the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Ld.CIT(A) ought riot to have upheld the addition of Rs. 8,48,600/-towards capital gain on sale of house property by rejecting the cost of improvement to the house property. 2.3 Without prejudice to the above, the Ld CIT(A) ought to have allowed a part of the cost of improvement because there could not be any impr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for the improvement of the cost of the building due to the reasons as mentioned below. (a) Regarding the construction of the 1st floor: Shri Dilip K. Mistry 1. The copy of the original bill raised by the contractor was not furnished. 2. The copy of the income tax return of the contractor was not furnished. 3. The copy of the bank passbook of the contractor was not furnished. 4. The contractor namely Shri Dilip K. Mistry party did not appear in response to the notice issued under section 131 of the Act. (b) Regarding wall fencing and renovation: Shri Gautam P. Suthar 1. The copy of the original bill was not furnished. 2. The copy of the income tax return was not furnished. 3. The copy of the bank passbook was not furnished. 4. The party in response to the notice issued under section 131 of the Act has admitted that the bill was issued to the assessee on his request in connection with some income tax matter. 7. All the above-stated facts were brought to the notice of the assessee by the AO, but the assessee remained silent. 8. The AO also observed that the valuation report from the registered valuer dated 18th November 2010 does not speak about the constructi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d by him. The assessee claimed to have incurred the cost of improvement by constructing additional rooms on the building and wall fencing including renovation. However, the AO did not agree with the supporting evidence filed by the assessee in connection with the cost of the improvement. Accordingly, the AO did not give any benefit to the assessee on the cost of improvement claimed by him. The learned CIT-A subsequently confirmed the view taken by the AO. 14.1 Now the controversy before us arises for our adjudication to whether the assessee has incurred any cost of the improvement in the given facts and circumstances. In this regard, we note that the initial onus lies on the assessee to substantiate his claim from documentary evidence. The assessee before the AO filed the duplicate copies of the bills issued by 2 parties justifying the cost of improvement incurred by him. The details of the same stand as under: 1. Dilip K. Mistry Construction of two new rooms Rs. 15,12,000.00 2. Riddi Siddi Furniture Wall fencing and renovation Rs. 9,95,800.00 14.2 However, we note that the above claim of the assessee was not substantiated before the authorities below by supporting ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nk account including the wife. Thus there was no reason for the wife of the assessee to keep such huge cash in hand. iii) The cash was deposited in the bank account between the period beginning from 15th April 2010 to 28th April 2010. After that there was no cash deposited by the assessee in the bank. iv) The cash was deposited immediately after the sale of the immovable property on 13th April 2010. 16.1 Because of the above, the AO treated the sum of cash deposited by the assessee in his bank account as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. Accordingly, the AO added the sum of Rs. 4.40 lacs to the total income of the assessee. 17. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to learned CIT (A). The assessee before the learned CIT (A) contended that the cash was deposited out of past savings and salary income. There was also income in the hands of his wife which she earned from her source of tuition and beauty parlor work. 18. However, the learned CIT (A) rejected the submission of the assessee and concurred with the view of the AO. 19. Aggrieved by the order of learned CIT (A) assessee is in appeal before us. The learned AR before us submitted that the cash deposi....