TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (1) TMI 323
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not quashing the impugned assessment order passed by Ld. AO u/s 153C/144 without assuming jurisdiction as per law and without recording requisite satisfaction as per law and without complying with the other mandatory conditions as envisaged under the Act. 2. That in any case and in any view of the matter, action of Ld. CIT(A) in not quashing the impugned assessment order passed by Ld. AO u/s 153C/144, is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case, more so when no incriminating material was found as a result of search. 3. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not appreciating/considering the evidences filed by assessee. 8. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not quashing the impugned assessment order passed Ld. AO and that too without obtaining the valid approval u/s 153D as per law. 9. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not reversing the action of Ld. AO in charging the interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961." 3. Brief facts of the case:-The assessee is an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Rs. 48,84,524/- towards the cost of indexation claimed by the assessee. 7. During the year, the assessee had sold a property at 27/29, Gali No.9, Biswas Nagar, Sahadra, Delhi-32 at a sale consideration of Rs. 71,50,000/- and offered capital gains amounting to Rs. 20,84,508/- after claiming indexation of Rs. 50,65,492/-. The assessee claimed that the above property was purchased and constructed during the year 1993- 94 to 2010-2011 and claimed to have spent an amount of Rs. 31,98,704/- on its construction. As per the computation of income, the assessee claimed indexation amounting to Rs. 50,65,492/-. The above indexation also included the cost of land amounting to Rs. 1,80,968/- which was allowed by the AO. In respect of the balance amount ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s claimed were frivolous and unverifiable on account of bogus bills submitted by the assessee. The relevant discussion of the ld. CIT(A) in para no. ivb on page no.12 of his order is reproduced as under:- "iv b. Next issue is about the allowability of certain claims regarding costs of additions/alterations to the property. The AO has examined this issue and concluded that the expenses by the appellant are not verifiable nor corroborated by documents filed in this regard. The AO has seen and recommended allowability of some expenses amount Rs. 3,94,860/- during period 2009-10 paid to the Municipal and other authorities. I have considered the facts of the case and it is seen that the appellant produced certain self serving evidences trying ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ditures were paid to the Government department, which was also allowed by the Ld. CIT(A). 8. The Ld. DR supported the orders of the authorities below. 9. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. We have carefully considered the claim of the assessee amounting to Rs. 48,84,524/- towards the indexed cost of construction in respect of the building sold by the assessee. It is undisputed fact that there was a building, which was sold during the year on which capital gains has been offered by the assessee. Therefore, the denial of the entire expenditure incurred towards as cost of construction by the AO cannot be held to be justified even if the assessee did not submit satisfactory bills/vouchers in support o....