Jaideep Chopra vs ACIT

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. CIT (Appeals)-34, New Delhi dated 22.03.2019 for the AY 2014-15.

The grounds of appeal taken by the assessee read as under :-

“1. That addition of Rs.18,79,659 is totally wrong on account of sale of flat in ireo is totally wrong as it was contention of the Assessing officer that we failed to produce evidence of purchase of property to the extent of Rs.18,79,659/- as all the documents were produced before the Assessing officer as well. However before the Learned Commissioner appeals we were able to submit Proofs of Rs.43,68,919/- in spite of that additional of Rs.18,79,659/- was upheld by commissioner (appeals).

That addition of Rs.20,51,232/- on account of sale of nangloi property is totally incorrect and uncalled for as said property in raw condition was purchased for Rs.43,200 / - and for construction it costed Assessee Rs.10,06,800 / -. It is submitted that it is an old property acquired in A.Y 2003-04 nothing adverse was found with respect to the said property when our Assessment was framed m A.Y 2010-11 u/s 143(3). Learned Commissioner (appeals) has also erred in sustaining Said addition.

That Assessing officer has made addition of Rs.28,24,895/-which is totally wrong .It is submitted that the sale deed with respect to property in dispute i.e. property A-3/19, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi was executed in the A.Y 2014-15 but at the time of making the payment purchaser did not handed over the payment of Rs.89,00,000/- as our papers were not complete and they were lying in the custody of bank. The same transaction was completed in the month of April of next financial year that uis why we have shown capital gains in the next year. So there was no malafide intention or ulterior motive in that. It is submitted that the cheque mentioned in the sale deed was never encashed a new cheque was given as consideration which was encashed on 28.04.2014 (next financial year).

It is further submitted that the very same clarification was given to the Assessing Officer and she was agreeing at that time. It can be seen from the show cause notice issued by her on 27.12.2016 she never intended to make the said addition. Learned Commissioner (appeals) has also erred in sustaining said addition.”

Brief facts of the case are that during the year under consideration, assessee has sold flat at Ireo Skyon unit no. E0809 at Rs.1,27,131/- and have taken cost of purchase at Rs.46,04,949/-. The assessee has furnished the proof of payment of Rs.27,25,290/- and no detail about rest of the payment made for the purchase of property is furnished by the assessee before the AO. Therefore AO has taken the purchase price at Rs.27,25,290/- and short term capital gain calculated at Rs.99,74,841/- in place of Rs.80,95,182/- shown by the assessee and added difference of Rs.18,79,659/- in the taxable income of the assessee.

Upon assessee’s appeal, ld. CIT (A) considered the assessee’s submissions and held as under :-

“ I have considered the facts of the case, finding of the AO and submissions of the appellant. Appellant has furnished proof of payment of purchase of flat at Rs.27,25,290/- only whereas he has shown the cost of purchase at RS.46,04,949/-. The appellant has submitted during the appellate proceedings that he is enclosing the receipts of Rs.43,67,309.91/-, whereas it is observed that he has filed the photocopies of the receipts of Rs.27,29,900/- and no receipt is furnished for the payment of Rs.16,39,019/-. The appellant has not produced original receipts nor the copy of purchase deed evidencing the schedule of payments for the purchase of the property. The appellant has sold the property at Rs.1,27,00,131/- and furnished evidences of Rs.27,25,290/- only. Hence AO has correctly calculated the short term capital gain at Rs.99,74,841/- and added difference of Rs.18,79,659/- in the taxable income of the appellant. The AO has allowed the credit of short term capital gain at Rs.80,95,182/- disclosed by the appellant. Hence addition made by the AO at Rs.18,79,659/- is hereby confirmed.”

Apropos issue of addition of Rs.20,51,232/- made by the AO on account of sale of Nangloi property : on this issue, AO noted that assessee has sold property at village Safipur Ranhula, Delhi at Rs.23 lacs and which was purchased by the assessee at Rs.40,000/-. The assessee has taken the benefit of cost inflation indexation on an amount of Rs.10,50,000/-, therefore AO has calculated long term capital gain and cost price for cost inflation index is restricted to Rs.40,000/-. After calculation long term capital gain worked out to Rs.22,21,750/-, whereas assessee has calculated at Rs.l,70,518/-. Hence AO has added the difference of Rs.20,51,232/- in the taxable income of the assessee.

Upon assessee’s appeal, ld. CIT (A) held as under :-

“ I have considered the facts of the case, finding of the AO and submissions of the appellant. Appellant has claimed cost of improvement at Rs.10,50,000/- but no evidence is furnished in support of his contention. In absence of any evidence contention of the appellant in respect of cost of improvement could not be accepted and AO has correctly computed the long term capital gain on the basis of the cost of purchase and addition made by the AO at Rs.20,51,232/- is hereby confirmed.”

Apropos issue of addition of Rs.28,24,895/- made by the AO in respect of the property, A-3/19, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi : On this issue, AO noted that as per the AIR information appellant has sold a property A-3/19, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi for Rs.89 lacs through a sale deed executed on 24.02.2014. The resulting capital gain was declared by the assessee in Assessment Year 2015-16. It is mentioned by the AO in the order that as per the provisions of section 45, any profits or gain arising from the transfer of capital asset effected in the previous year shall be deemed to the income of the previous year in which transfer took place. As the property is sold during the year under consideration, AO has added long term capital gain at Rs.28,24,895/- in the taxable income of the assessee.

Upon assessee’s appeal, ld. CIT (A) held as under :-

“ I have considered the facts of the case, finding of the AO and submissions of the appellant. Appellant has sold the property during the year under consideration and sale deed was executed during the financial year 2013-14. As per the provision of section 45 any profits or gain arising from the transfer of capital asset effected in the previous year shall be deemed to the income of the previous year in which transfer took place. Since in the case of the appellant transfer took place during the year therefore AO has correctly taxed the capital gain for the year under consideration and addition made by the AO at Rs.28,24,895/- is hereby confirmed.”

Apropos addition of Rs.14,98,184/- on account of disallowance of expenses : On this issue, AO noted that the assessee had claimed expenses of Rs.2,97,24,351/- as production expenses. The assessee has furnished the detail of expenses of Rs.2,82,26,167/- and no detail regarding expenses of Rs.14,98,184/- was submitted by the assessee before the AO. Therefore in absence of any detail and evidences, AO has disallowed expenses of Rs.14,98,184/- and added it back to. the taxable income of the assessee.

Upon assessee’s appeal, ld. CIT (A) confirmed the addition by noting that it is an admitted fact that assessee was unable to produce any evidence in respect of expenses of Rs.14,98,184/-. Hence, ld. CIT (A) confirmed the addition.

Against this order, assessee is in appeal before us. We have heard the ld. DR for the Revenue and perused the records. None appeared on behalf of the assessee despite several notices and the latest notice has also returned unserved.

Upon careful consideration and going through the assessment order ld. CIT (A)’s order, we find that the impugned additions and disallowances are made on cogent footings. Nothing has been brought to our notice to controvert the finding of AO and ld. CIT (A). Hence, we do not find any infirmity in the order of ld. CIT (A) and we affirm the same.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed.