TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (5) TMI 796
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....167/- as against the short term capital loss (STCL) of Rs. 13,26,113/- suffered by the appellant and claimed in the return of income. The addition so made by ld. AO and sustained by ld. CIT(A) is grossly wrong, unjustified and contrary to the law. Appellant prays for deleting the same. 2) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as in law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 3,04,819/- u/s 56(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (the Act) without properly and fairy considering the deficiencies in the land purchased pointed out by the appellant and without complying with the provisions of first proviso below S.56(2)(vii) of the Act. Addition so made and sustained is grossly wrong and unjustified on facts as well as in law and is contrary to the settled law. Appellant prays for deleting the same. 3) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as in law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the charging of interest u/s 234A/234B/234C/234D of the Act in respect of above wrong and unjustified additions and consequent total income assessed. 4) Appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete or modify any ground....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessee claimed that location of the plot was in a low slum area and there was no street light, road etc., On request of assessee, reference was made to DVO but no report was received by AO. Hence, AO made addition of Rs. 3,04,819/- because there was another co-owner of the property. 3. Aggrieved by this order of AO, assessee filed appeal before Ld.CIT(A). Before Ld.CIT(A), assessee has reiterated the facts as stated above. The Ld.CIT(A) considered the submissions of the assessee. It was seen from the submissions as well as the agreements that additional construction work was given to M/s Raj Infrastructure, M/s Aditya Corporation and M/s Angel Construction Co. for Rs. 15,93,00/-, Rs. 15,94,000/- and Rs. 15,93,000/- respectively, totaling to Rs. 47,38,280/. It was surprising that the assessee has given the same work to three builders as additional work on same flat. Therefore, the Ld.CIT(A) held that the assessee failed to establish additional work on the subject flat. The Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by AO and dismissed the appeal of assessee. 3.1 The Ld. CIT(A) also dismissed the other ground of assesse regarding addition of Rs. 3,04,819/- u/s 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Ld. AR also submitted that observation of AO regarding field visit of his Inspector to flat revealing no signs of extra work is also completely wrong because no such field visit was ever made nor any details of such visit is mentioned in the assessment order. 5. The Ld. AR also submitted that AO has taken up the case for "limited scrutiny" on the issues of "(i) sale consideration of property in ITR is less than sale consideration in AIR and (ii) large investment in property as compared to total income". However, the addition made by AO by disallowing the additional cost of extra work does not fall in the scope of both the issues of "limited scrutiny". Moreover, there is not even a whisper in the assessment order of any approval of Ld.PCIT for such expanded scrutiny assessment, which is mandatory in limited scrutiny assessment. In support Ld. AR relied on case laws in the case of Suresh Jugraj Mutha vs. ACIT in ITA No.05/PUN/2016 dated 04.05.2018 and Sanjeev Kumar Khemka vs. PCIT in ITA No.1361/Kol/2016 dated 02.06.2017. The AR stated that the disallowance of cost of extra work of Rs. 47,38,280/- and consequent re-computation of the STCG at Rs. 34,12,167/- is wrong and unjustif....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....perty at Rs. 13,09,638/- jointly with another co-owner namely Smt. Pushpadevi Maheshkumar Biyani. The share of the assessee comes to Rs. 6,54,819/-. In addition to the above purchase, assessee has also paid Rs. 37,25,400/- to three contractors for additional works. She has also paid Rs. 10,12,880/- as margin money to the contractors. Therefore, total payment was Rs. 47,38,280/-. These payments were made in August, 2013, and January, 2013. The payments made in August, 2013 amounting to Rs. 37,25,400/- pertains to previous year relevant to the subject AY 2015-16. Therefore, total payments towards investment in the property was at Rs. 40,75,400/- (37,25,400 + 3,50,000). If the value adopted by the Stamp Valuation Authority is considered, it would be Rs. 43,80,219/-. Therefore, the total investment in property as compared to the total income declared by the assessee in her ITR is much higher. In view of the above facts, it is clear that the AO has not expanded the scope of inquiry under "limited scrutiny" by CASS. We also find that the enquiry made by the AO are directly on the issue for which the case was selected for "limited scrutiny". Therefore, the contention of the Ld.AR that the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Biyani should be allowed towards cost of additional work, the assessee has submitted a clarification wherein it is stated that the housing loan was sanctioned by the bank in the joint names of applicant and her husband, Shri Pradeepkumar D Biyani. As income the assessee was not sufficient to be eligible for obtaining the housing loan of Rs. 85,00,000/-, the same was obtained in the joints name of the assessee and her husband. It is submitted that though the flat was purchased by the appellant but in order to be eligible for housing loan same was purchased in the joint names of the appellant and her husband (Shri Pradeepkumr D Biyani) also. Husband's name was included only for housing loan purpose. The cost of purchase of the flat and cost of additional work have been accounted for in the books of the appellant and the full amount of the housing loan availed and repaid is also accounted in the books of the appellant. The housing loan was directly disbursed by the bank to the builder and to the contractors for additional work. The appellant had paid only margin money which is at pages 1 to 4 of paper book-I. Payment of margin money to contractors for additional work are at pages 32 ....