Jawad M. Mansuri, Mumbai vs Assessee

ी डी. म मोहन, उपा य एवं ी संजय अरोड़ा, लेखा सद य के सम । BEFORE SHRI D. MANMOHAN, VP AND SHRI SANJAY ARORA, AM

आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3528/Mum/2012 ( नधारण वष / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Jawad M. Mansuri ITO-19(3)(4), 401, 4th Floor, Tulsi Mahal, बनाम/ Mumbai 20th Road, Bandra (W), Vs. Mumbai-400 050 थायी ले खा सं . /जीआइआर सं . /PAN/GIR No. AEHPM 9607 C (अपीलाथ /Appellant) : ( यथ / Respondent)

अपीलाथ क ओर से / Appellant by : None

यथ क ओर से/Respondent by : Shri Vivek A. Perampurna

सनु वाई क तार ख / : 20.10.2014 Date of Hearing घोषणा क तार ख / : 07.01.2015 Date of Pronouncement

आदे श / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.:

This is an Appeal by the Assessee directed against the Order by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-30, Mumbai ('CIT(A)' for short) dated 30.03.2012, dismissing the assessee's appeal contesting its assessment u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' hereinafter) for the assessment year (A.Y.) 2008-09 vide order dated 03.12.2010.

2. None appeared for and on behalf of the assessee when his appeal was called out for hearing. The assessee stands duly informed of the date of hearing through the listing at the notice board of the Tribunal. On several earlier occasions also, viz. 11.06.2013, 2 ITA No. 3528/Mum/2012 (A.Y. 2008-09) Jawad M. Mansuri vs. ITO

22.10.2013, 06.03.2014 and 06.05.2014, the hearing was adjourned acceding to the assessee's request, moved through his counsel, Shri G. R. Naik, CA. Under the circumstances, it was only considered fit and proper to proceed with the matter, deciding the appeal after hearing the party before us.

3. The appeal raises issues qua three (3) disallowances effected by the Assessing Officer (AO) in computing the long term capital gains (LTCG) on the sale of tenancy rights by the assessee during the relevant previous year, since confirmed by the ld. CIT(A).

4. We have heard the party before us, and perused the material on record. We begin by reproducing the assessee's working of the said long term capital gains:

(Amt. in Rs.) LTCG on compensation recd. on surrendering tenacy 63,00,000 right in flat no. 6, Comfort Villa, 25-A, New Kant Wadi Road, Bandra (W), Mumbai-400 050 Less: Amount invested in New Flat No. 401, Tulsi 50,00,000 Mahal, 20th Road, Bandra (W), Mumbai-50 Stamp duty on above 2,52,550 Registration Charges 50,920 Other exp. paid to builder 75,000 Additions made towards flat 8,92,500 62,70,970

5. The disallowances under reference are as follows, which were made the AO on the common ground of being neither evidenced nor even otherwise legally valid claims, and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) for, principally, the same reasons. We shall take up each of them separately, as under:

a) Rs.20,000/- towards registration charges: The same stands made for the reason that the copy of the purchase agreement, and that of registration receipt cum index 2, exhibiting the said charges as toward the registration of the purchase agreement of the new residential flat purchased in lieu of and in utilization of the said capital gains, were paid at Rs.30,920/-, as against the claimed sum of Rs.50,920/-. The 3 ITA No. 3528/Mum/2012 (A.Y. 2008-09) Jawad M. Mansuri vs. ITO

assessee's explanation, as gathered from the grounds of appeal before the first appellate authority, is that the balance Rs.20,000/- represented registration expenses. The same, firstly, only proves the Revenue's charge of the registration charges being only at Rs.30,920/-. The assessee's claim is both unsubstantiated and without any authority of law and, accordingly, stands rightly disallowed by the Revenue. We decide accordingly.

b) Rs.75,000/- - Other expenses paid to the Builder: The same, again, as explained per the grounds of appeal and explanation furnished before the first appellate authority, is toward one time non-refundable deposit paid to the builder. If it is non refundable, how could it at all be said to be a deposit? Is there any reference to it in the purchase agreement? No evidence toward the same stands furnished at any stage. We, under the circumstances, find no infirmity in the disallowance of the claim in its respect. We decide accordingly.

c) Rs.8,92,500/- - Additions to the new Flat: The assessee claims to have expended the said sum in making the flat habitable; the flat as provided by the builder being in a raw state. The assessee's claim, though valid in principle, i.e., where the amount is spent for making the building/ construction habitable, would fail, and for reasons more than one. Firstly, there is nothing to show that the flat was received or delivered in a raw state, even as the said state ought to and would be the subject matter of the purchase agreement in-as-much as it defines the obligations of the builder, stating specifically what is required to be delivered, and for which in fact the consideration is being paid. The purchase agreement would in any case detail the extent of different works to be carried out. Whether, therefore, tiling of kitchen and bathrooms, on which the major part of impugned sum of Rs.8.93 lacs is stated to have been spent, was to be done by the builder, to whatever extent, or not, is not clear. Secondly, the fact of having expended the said sum for the stated purpose is itself not evidenced. The assessee has not substantiated his claim at any stage, so that it remains unproved (refer paras 6.4 & 4 ITA No. 3528/Mum/2012 (A.Y. 2008-09) Jawad M. Mansuri vs. ITO

4.3 of assessment and impugned order respectively). No improvement in his case stands made even before us. We, under the circumstances, decline interference.

We decide accordingly.

6. In the result, the assessee's appeal is dismissed.

प रणामतः नधा रती क अपील खा रज क जाती है ।

Order pronounced in the open court on January 07, 2015

Sd/- Sd/-

(D. Manmohan) (Sanjay Arora) उपा य / Vice President लेखा सद य / Accountant Member मुंबई Mumbai; दनांक Dated : 07.01.2015 व. न.स./Roshani, Sr. PS

आदे श क त ल प अ े षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to :

1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant

2. यथ / The Respondent

3. आयकर आयु त(अपील) / The CIT(A)

4. आयकर आयु त / CIT - concerned

5. वभागीय त न ध, आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, मंब ु ई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai

6. गाड फाईल / Guard File आदे शानस ु ार/ BY ORDER,

उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, मंब ु ई / ITAT, Mumbai