TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (12) TMI 918
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tice. 1.2 The Lcl. CIT(A) has grievously erred 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 all....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rooms on the 1st floor, wall fencing and renovation of the building. 6. However, the AO did not believe the claim of the assessee 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 n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... heard the rival contentions and perused the materials available on record. The issue in the instant case relates to whether the assessee has incurred the cost of improvement as discussed above on the building partly owned 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 ro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cts in the submission of the assessee as detailed under: i) There was no document evidencing that the wife of the assessee was engaged in any commercial activity such as beauty parlor or tuition. ii) The bank account of the assessee was a joint bank 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... no dispute regarding the sale consideration of the immovable property. The assessee has also not challenged the sale consideration of the property either before the AO or the learned CIT (A). The assessee 1st time before us has taken a plea that the cash deposited represents the part of the sale proceeds of the immovable property. 23.4 Thus we note that there is a contradictory statement of the assessee before the authorities below and before us. Therefore, we conclude that there is no merit in the argument raised by the learned counsel for the assessee. 23.5 In this regard we find support & guidance from the judgment of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Eastern Commercial Enterprise (1994) 210 ITR 103 (Cal) at page 111:- "It was true that 'R' had proved to be a shifty person as a witness. At the earlier stages, he claimed all his sales to be genuine but before the Assessing Officer in the case of the assessee, he disowned the sales specifically made to the assessee. This statement could at the worst show that 'R' was not a trustworthy witness and little value could be attached to what he stated either in his affidavits or in his examina....