Vandana Mathur Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi)
ITAT Delhi held that cost of incurred in furnishing the flat is allowable as cost of improvement and the capital gain is to be calculated accordingly. Thus, appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Facts- Vide the present appeal, the appellant has expressed grievance regarding disallowance of index cost of improvement amounting Rs.49,64,602/- while working out the capital gain on sale of property whereas assessee/ appellant correctly claimed cost of improvement incurred in furnishing the flat.
The appellant has also contested that both the authorities without any justification treated the cash deposit during demonetization period amounting to Rs.14,50,000/- in joint account maintained by the assessee with her husband as unexplained investment u/s.69 of the Act
Conclusion- Held that it can’t be inferred that expenses, details of expenses which is submitted are not integral part of furnished house and we have no hesitation to hold that the finding of both the lower authorities quite unsustainable in law in this regard and so ground No.1 is hereby allowed and addition in question deserves to be deleted.
Held that it is brought in our notice that the assessment order for A.Y. 2017-18 in the case of Deepak Mathur (joint account holder and husband of the assessee Vandanda Mathur)in which the same amount was added in the hands of Sh. Deepak Mathur and view of that same amount cannot be taxed in the hands of assessee/ appellant Vadana also as it will create double taxation which is contrary to law and by only this reason the ground is deserves to be allowed and addition is deleted.
