2016 (4) TMI 1088 - AT - Income Tax

Claim of exemption u/s 54F - denial of claim as on the date of sale the assessee owned more than one residential house and as per section 54F(1)(ii 12, 66, 515/- for two flat nos. 401 8, 23, 000/- for flat no.401 4, 43, 515/- for flat no.502 and the amount spent was appropriated out of the amount paid by the assessee on 20.7.2009 and 24.7.2009. On further verification of the ledger extract submitted by the builder it was noticed that the assessee has paid an amount of 29 lakhs towards flat no.401 and 25 lakhs towards flat no.502. As per said ledger accounts the total cost including registration and additional works incurred for the flat is 29 lakhs for flat no.401 25 lakhs for flat no.502. As against this the assessee has claimed exemption of 35 lakhs for flat no.401 29 lakhs for flat no.502. The additional amount of 10 lakhs stated to be incurred towards additional work for flat no.401 12, 66, 515/- only has been incurred and this additional amount of 10 lakhs claimed by the assessee is not mentioned. The CIT(A) considering the details furnished by the assessee denied the benefit of exemption u/s 54F of the Act. We do not see any error or infirmity in the order passed by the CIT(A). - Decided against assessee

Summary

Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing appeal.
2. Disallowance of exemption claimed under sections 54 and 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
3. Denial of benefit of exemption for additional work done on properties.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed with a delay of 5 days due to the illness of the HUF's Karta. The Tribunal, after considering the reasons for delay and finding it unintentional, condoned the delay under section 253(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, admitting the appeal for further proceedings.

2. The assessee claimed exemptions under sections 54 and 54F of the Act for reinvestment in properties. The Assessing Officer allowed exemption under section 54 but restricted it, and disallowed the exemption claimed under section 54F as the assessee owned more than one residential property. The CIT(A) directed to allow the exemption under section 54F but disallowed the amount spent on additional work due to lack of specific information. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the confirmation letter provided was vague and did not specify the nature of additional work done, leading to the denial of the exemption.

3. The assessee contended that the denial of exemption for additional work was incorrect, as a confirmation letter from the builder stated that additional work was carried out. However, the Tribunal found that the confirmation letter did not provide sufficient details regarding the additional work and the amount spent. The lack of documentary evidence to support the claim of additional work led to the rejection of the assessee's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee, upholding the decisions of the lower authorities regarding the disallowance of exemptions under sections 54 and 54F, as well as the denial of benefit for additional work done on the properties.