9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (10) TMI 1083 - AT - Income TaxDisallowing the claim of exemption u/s 54F - amount spent within the extended period of time - non submission bills of the construction of the property - Held that - As regards the bills relating to construction of property, the assessee has submitted the valuation report of the approved valuer in which no defect has been pointed out and also the AO has not referred the matter to the DVO. In such circumstances, the report of the registered valuer has to be considered as final and therefore the allegation of the AO becomes ineffective. Moreover, the controversy of not depositing money under capital Gain Account gets resolved once having spent the amount under Section 54F of the Act within the extended period of time - Decided against revenue
Issues involved:
1. Disallowance of claim of exemption u/s 54F of the I.T. Act for lack of documentary evidence. 2. Allegation of non-deposit of utilized consideration in a bank account or construction of house within the extended period. 3. Dispute over the deletion of additions by the CIT(A) based on submissions by the assessee. 4. Ex parte decision due to absence of the assessee. 5. Resolution of controversy regarding non-deposit in Capital Gain Account scheme. Issue 1: Disallowance of claim of exemption u/s 54F: The Revenue appealed against the deletion of the addition of ?50,29,500 made by the AO due to disallowance of the claim of exemption u/s 54F. The AO contended that no bills related to the purchase of material for construction or documents proving ownership of the plot were produced. The assessee claimed to have invested in residential property within the extended period but failed to provide sufficient documentary evidence. The CIT(A) deleted the additions based on the submissions made by the assessee. Issue 2: Allegation of non-deposit of utilized consideration: The AO alleged that the assessee did not deposit the utilized consideration in any bank account or invest the same in construction of a house within the extended period. However, the CIT(A) noted that the AO did not raise the issue of non-deposit in the capital gain account scheme. The assessee submitted a valuation report by an approved valuer, which was considered final as no defects were pointed out. The CIT(A) referred to previous decisions supporting the resolution of the controversy over non-deposit under Section 54F. Issue 3: Dispute over deletion of additions by CIT(A): The Revenue raised grounds of appeal against the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions. The Revenue argued that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition without proper documentary evidence. However, the CIT(A) found no infirmity in the order, stating that the registered valuer's report was final and the non-deposit issue was resolved by spending the amount within the extended period under Section 54F. Issue 4: Ex parte decision due to absence of assessee: During the proceedings, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. The appeal was decided ex parte after hearing the learned DR and reviewing the available material on record. Issue 5: Resolution of controversy regarding non-deposit in Capital Gain Account scheme: The controversy regarding non-deposit in the Capital Gain Account scheme was resolved by the CIT(A) based on the submission of the assessee and the valuation report provided. The CIT(A) referred to previous decisions to support the deletion of the addition made by the AO. The appeal of the Revenue was dismissed by the ITAT Delhi. This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, arguments presented, and the final decision rendered by the ITAT Delhi in this case.
|
