ITAT refused to admit additional evidence when were available with assessee before the completion of the assessment and no reasons was given as to why those were not filed before AO or CIT(A).
ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
ABCAUS 3794 (2023) (08) ITAT
In the instant case, the assessee had challenged the order passed by the CIT(A) in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer (AO) in disallowing the expenditure claimed towards cost of improvement of flat.
The assessee was an individual and had sold one residential flat which was sold by him resulting short term capital gain.
In the return of income, the assessee while computing capital gain, claimed additions made to the flat towards cost of improvement.
However, the Assessing Officer disallowed the claim as no evidence was filed before him. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). It was submitted by the assessee that he had engaged a contractor to carry out the improvement work and payments were made periodically to the contractor.
However, the CIT(A) also confirmed the same in the absence of any evidence filed in this regard observing that expenditure was not genuine.
Aggrieved, the assessee filed the appeal before the Tribunal.
Before the ITAT the assessee filed some ledger account copy and one certificate from builder depicting the expenditure made.
However, when the ITAT asked the assessee why those additional evidence was not produced before the AO or CIT(A), he merely stated that these are being filed now as additional evidence.
The Tribunal opined that though the assessee filed petition for additional evidence, he could not substantiate his petition that as to why he could not file these evidences before the A.O or before the CIT(A), when it was available to him on that date as per certificate of the contractor.
The Tribunal refused to admit the additional evidence as these evidences were available with the assessee before the completion of the assessment and no reasons was cited as to why those were not filed before AO or the CIT(A).
This ground of assessee’s appeal is dismissed
Download Full Judgment Click Here >>
- Jewellery purportedly received from grandparent under Will added as unexplained credits
- SC lays down tests to determine if a debt is financial debt or operational under IBC
- Commonality of directors of companies does not mean deposits received was bogus
- Application though named as rectification but if tax is not legitimate, it also touches merit: HC
- Cost of acquisition as on 01.04.1981 taken as per valuer report by reverse indexing of FMV
