The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the addition cannot be sustained without any documentary evidence on record, accordingly the finding of the lower authorities on the issue in dispute was set aside.
Facts of the case:
The assessee file the return of income declaring total income, which comprises income declared under the head ‘income from house property’, ‘profit or gains from business or profession’, ‘capital gain and income from other sources’.
The return of income filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment and notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued. In the scrutiny assessment completed under section 143(3) the Act, the Assessing Officer made additions under the head capital gain for long-term capital gain and disallowance of short-term capital loss.
Interpretation of law:
Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who upheld the finding of the Assessing Officer. Aggrieved with the finding of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the ground that the order of the CIT(A) is bad in law and in fact.
The assessee contended that she has discharged her onus by way of furnishing the details of purchase, sale, and also details of the buyer, and the relevant documents were referred.
The tribunal consists of a Judicial Member, Bhavnesh Saini, and an accountant member, O.P. Kant observed that the Revenue has not brought on record whether the assessee received consideration more than ₹ 50,000 or consideration more than ₹ 50,000 will be accrued to the assessee and regarding the cost of the acquisition also the Assessing Officer has not brought on record any adverse evidence. Therefore, it was ruled that the addition cannot be sustained without any documentary evidence on record, accordingly the finding of the lower authorities on the issue in dispute was set aside.