Jay Kishan Soni Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad)
ITAT Ahmedabad Allows Capital-Loss Claim: Long-Term Maintenance Expenditure Accepted Despite Missing Bills
In this appeal, Assessee, a joint owner of an old building rented to a Government School, challenged the action of AO & CIT(A) in treating ₹6,00,000 as long-term capital gain by restricting indexed cost of acquisition to ₹1,10,000 & rejecting Assessee’s claim of having incurred development & maintenance expenditure over nearly 20 years. Assessee had declared a long-term capital loss of ₹2,13,882 based on indexed expenditure of ₹8,13,882 but could not produce supporting bills as the contractors had passed away & records were old.
Tribunal noted that in the case of co-owners assessed in Rajasthan, Revenue had accepted similar expenditure, and given the nature of the property, long-term tenancy by a Government Department, & absence of contrary evidence, the incurrence of such expenditure could not be ruled out. Tribunal thus held that the addition sustained by CIT(A) was unsustainable & allowed the claim of Assessee after accepting the explanation as reasonable in the facts. The appeal was allowed in full.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT AHMEDABAD
This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)” for short) dated 27.03.2025 passed under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act” for short], for Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14.
