Brij Bhushan Aggrawal v. O R D E R%30.08.2017

$~49 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ITA 719/2017 BRIJ BHUSHAN AGGRAWAL..... AppellantThrough:Ms. Anu Sura, Adv. for Mr. SameerJain, Advocate versus OFFICER OF INCOME TAXThrough:None ..... Respondent CORAM:JUSTICE S.MURALIDHARJUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH O R D E R%30.08.2017 CM 31478/2017 (exemption) 1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. ITA 719/2017 & CM No.31479/2017 (stay) 2.This is an Assessee’s appeal against an order dated 24[th]April, 2017passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘ITAT’) in ITA No.214/Del/2017 for the Assessment Year 2014-15. 3. The Assessee filed return of income for the Financial Year 2012-13 on13[th]August, 2014 showing the income from long term capital gain(LTCG)/loss as well as income from other sources and net agriculturalincome. In all, the Assessee declared an income of Rs.3,00,090/-.In theAssessment Order dated 26[th]November, 2015 under Section 143(3) of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), the Assessing Officer (AO) found that theAssessee had sold 20 bighas of land for a total sale consideration of ITA No.719/2017 Page 1 of 3 Rs.70,54,000/-. In the computation of LTCG, the Assessee claimed to haveincurred expenses of Rs.9,78,125/- on account of filling of soil in Bhattaland. The AO by means of Order Sheet Entry dated 6[th]October, 2015 askedthe Assessee to substantiate this claim. In response thereto, the Assesseefiled his personal affidavit on 9[th]November, 2015 stating that he hadinvested Rs.5 Lakhs on contract basis for the purpose of filling up of landincluding the cost of soil, loading transportation of soil, unloading andlevelling of land in the year 2004. He claimed that he had not maintained thebooks of accounts for the said expenses. In the absence of any proof ofhaving spent the above amount, the AO added the said amount to thereturned income of the Assessee. 4.The Assessee then carried the matter in appeal to the Commissioner ofIncome Tax (Appeals) [‘CIT(A)’]. By the order dated 4[th]October 2016, theCIT (A) dismissed the appeal on the ground that even during the appellateproceedings, the Assessee could not furnish any evidence to support hisclaim. 5. The Assessee then approached the ITAT. It is seen from the impugnedorder of the ITAT that the Assessee sought to submit some additionalevidence in the form of Certificate of Licence granted by the MunicipalCorporation of Muzaffarnagar dated 14[th]January, 2005 and the Affidavitdated 21[st]December, 2016 of the Sarpanch of the village. The ITAThowever declined to permit the Assessee to rely on such additional evidence.The ITAT concurred with the CIT (A) and dismissed the appeal. 6. This Court has perused the additional evidence produced by the Assessee ITA No.719/2017 Page 2 of 3 before the ITAT. It does not advance the case of the Assessee any further.The mere fact that a Certificate of Licence was issued to the Assessee forrunning a kiln on the Bhatta land in question furnishes no proof of theexpenditure of Rs.9,78,125/- incurred by the Assessee in filling it up. Thecertificate of Sarpanch again says very little about the actual expenditureincurred. It merely states that almost 10 to 12 years ago, the filling of brickson the land had been done by the Assessee at a high cost. Such a certificatewithout any documentary basis does not help the Assessee’s case. 7. Consequently, this Court is unable to find any legal infirmity in theconcurrent findings of the CIT (A) and the ITAT that the Assessee wasunable to substantiate the claim of having incurred expenses of Rs. Rs.9,78,125/- in filling up the land. 8. No substantial question of law arises from the impugned order of theITAT. The appeal and the application are accordingly dismissed. S. MURALIDHAR, J. AUGUST 30, 2017pk PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J. ITA No.719/2017