TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (4) TMI 2018
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....R This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against final assessment order dated 10.01.2025 passed u/s.144C(13) r.w.s. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") for the assessment year 2016- 2017. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual and a non-resident Indian. No regular return of income u/s.139(1) of the Act was filed by the appellant. Based on the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Dispute Resolution Panel ("DRP") contending that the appellant cannot be expected to produce evidence after the lapse of more than ten years and the AO should have allowed the deduction based on the evidence filed by the contractor, who had actually done the work of the improvement. However, the DRP confirmed the action of the AO. 4. Pursuant to the directions of the DRP, the final assessment o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted that the lower authorities ought to have allowed the cost of improvement based on the evidence given by the contractor, who actually executed the work of improvement of the said property. Thus, it is submitted that the evidence furnished simply cannot be brushed aside, placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mehta Parikh & Co. v. CIT (1956) 30 ITR 181 (SC) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... had executed the work relating to the improvement of the property. This evidence was not filed before the lower authorities nor the details. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the AO after examining the contractor can come to the conclusion whether the claim made towards the cost of improvement of the property is genuine or not. Therefore, I restore the matter to the file of the AO wi....