Case Law Details
Smt. Preeti Rathi Vs ITO (ITAT Pune)
The first issue raised herein is against not allowing deduction towards brokerage of Rs.80,000/- paid by the assessee at the time of purchase of the property in the computation of capital gain towards.
The claim of the assessee is that she paid a sum of Rs.80,000/- as brokerage at the time of purchase of property, which was sold during the assessment year under consideration. Despite repeated requests, the assessee could not furnish any evidence of the payment of the brokerage. The Wealth-tax return for the assessment year 2001-02 including the value of the flat at Vrundali, Bhandarkar Road, Pune is no substitute to the evidence of payment when called for. Neither any receipt of the payee nor any evidence of payment through banking channel or otherwise has come up either before the lower authorities or the Tribunal. In the given circumstances, I am satisfied that the ld. CIT(A) was justified in not allowing deduction towards payment of such brokerage in the computation of capital gain.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT PUNE
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A)-3, Pune on 02-01-2020 in relation to the assessment year 2013-14.
2. The first issue raised herein is against not allowing deduction towards brokerage of Rs.80,000/- paid by the assessee at the time of purchase of the property in the computation of capital gain towards.
3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee sold a residential apartment at Vrundali, Bhandarkar Road, Pune for a sum of Rs.1.84 core. While computing capital gain, the assessee reduced a sum of Rs.80,000/- towards cost of improvement, which was claimed to have been paid as brokerage at the time of purchase of the property. The AO called upon the assessee to produce evidence of the payment of brokerage. No evidence was furnished. The claim was accordingly rejected. The ld. CIT(A) echoed the assessment order on this point despite the assesse’s contention that the value of the property was increased by the amount of brokerage in her Wealth-tax return filed for the A.Y. 2001-02. Aggrieved thereby, the assessee has come up in appeal before the Tribunal.
4. I have heard both the sides and perused the relevant material on record. The claim of the assessee is that she paid a sum of Rs.80,000/- as brokerage at the time of purchase of property, which was sold during the assessment year under consideration. Despite repeated requests, the assessee could not furnish any evidence of the payment of the brokerage. The Wealth-tax return for the assessment year 2001-02 including the value of the flat at Vrundali, Bhandarkar Road, Pune is no substitute to the evidence of payment when called for. Neither any receipt of the payee nor any evidence of payment through banking channel or otherwise has come up either before the lower authorities or the Tribunal. In the given circumstances, I am satisfied that the ld. CIT(A) was justified in not allowing deduction towards payment of such brokerage in the computation of capital gain.
5. The only other issue raised by the assessee is against upholding the addition of Rs.11,93,000/- on the ground that the assessee did not withdraw or utilise the amount deposited in the capital gain account scheme in purchase/construction of the asset within the time specified u/s.54 of the Act. At the outset, the ld. AR fairly stated that this issue is academic in nature insofar as the year under consideration is concerned. I, therefore, uphold the impugned order on this score as well.
6. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 03rd February, 2022.
