Laxmanbhai Prabhudas Patel v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax ==========================================================

C/TAXAP/481/2018 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL NO. 481 of 2018 ========================================================== LAXMANBHAI PRABHUDAS PATELVersusDEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX========================================================== Appearance: MR. JAIMIN R DAVE(7022) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1 for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.N. KARIADate : 09/05/2018 ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI) 1. Assessee has filed this appeal challenging the judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 22.09.2017 raising following question for our consideration: “Whether Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in rejecting appellants claim of renovation expenditure under Section 48 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 2.Brief facts are as under. 3.The assessee had acquired an office premises on payment of sum of Rs.1 lakh on 01.04.1992. The same was sold for consideration of Rs.13 lakhs on 04.02.2010. The question of computation of capital gain arising out of such sale arise in the assessment year 2010-11. In the return filed, the assessee had claimed benefit of renovation expenses of Rs.4.23 lakhs (rounded off). The Assessing Officer rejected such claim in the order of assessment observing that the assessee has not maintained or produced any accounts. This view was approved by the Commissioner. The Tribunal in the further appeal, granted partial relief allowing expenditure of one lakh of rupees on ad-hoc basis. 4.We are broadly in agreement with the view of the Tribunal. The assessee failed to produce any accounts whatsoever with respect to the expenditure which he claimed to have been incurred in renovation. Even if some of the expenditure may have been incurred in distant past, the assessee could have at least produced the accounts and bills for the recent expenditure. The Tribunal at the same time recognize that in constructed property over so many years would require some maintenance, granted partial relief. 5.No question of law arises. Tax Appeal is dismissed. (AKIL KURESHI, J) (B.N. KARIA, J)