9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (6) TMI 408X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly as per the sale proceeds of Alwarpet property as shown in registered sale deed, treating Rs. 25 lakhs as unexplained investment - Held that:- The assessee has brought no material on record to show that it actually received any amount more than the amounts shown in the registered deed of sale - the assessee has invested Rs. 70,80,620 in the house property at Chennai and out of which source to the extent of Rs. 50 lakhs stands explained from the sale of property at Alwarpet and Rs. 6 lakhs stands explained from the sale of Velacherry land, thus the assessee was not able to explain the source of investment of balance amount of Rs. 14,80,620 only need to be added to the income of the assessee as un explained income – modify the order of the CIT(A) and restore back the addition to the extent of Rs. 14,80,620 - in favour of revenue. - IT APPEAL NO. 887 (MDS.) OF 2011 - - - Dated:- 23-3-2012 - N.S. SAINI, GEORGE MATHAN, JJ. Shaji P. Jacob for the Appellant. U. Mohamed Khalilullah for the Respondent. ORDER N.S. Saini, Accountant Member This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order passed by the ld. CIT(A)-XII, Chennai, dated 11.2.2011, for asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt which led to the belief and trust in the mind of the appellant that holding the Alwarpet property would not give any positive effects due to the 'Vaastu defects', appellant decided to dispose off the Alwarpet property, and on 13.11.06 the same was registered in the name of Shri P. Sairam, for a consideration of Rs. 50.00 lakhs by way of a sale deed registered in document No.1221/2006 before the Sub-Registrar, Chennai Central. Consequent to the which the appellant purchased a property, Flat No.11, I Floor, Anugraha Apartments, No.66, Spur Tank Road, Chetpet, Chennai 600031 on 15.11.2006 for a consideration of Rs. 70,80,620/-, where the appellant presently resides. Here, it was the contention of the Assessing Officer that the appellant was eligible for claim of deduction u/s 54F(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 to the extent investment made by the appellant in respect of the Alwarpet property purchased after the sale of the Velachery Property and the Assessing Officer had finalised the impugned order accordingly. This was for the reason that the appellant had not held the Alwarpet property for the requisite number of years required under the said provisions of the Income-tax Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... During the course of appellate proceedings, the authorised representative of the appellant had relied on the decision of the Bengaluru Bench of the ITAT reported in 110 TTJ 223 in the case of Nipun Mehrotra v. ACIT . In this connection, it is pertinent to reproduce the relevant Section 54F(4):- "4. The amount of the net consideration which is not appropriated by the assessee towards the purchase of the new asset made within one year before the date on which the transfer of the original asset took place, or which is not utilized by him for the purchase or construction of the new asset before the date of furnishing the return of income under section 139, shall be deposited by him before furnishing such return (such deposit being made in any case not later than the due date applicable in the case of tile assessee for furnishing the return of income under subsection (1) of section 139) in an account in any such bank or institution as may be specified in, and utilized in accordance with, any scheme which the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, frame in this behalf and such return shall be accompanied by proof of such deposit; and, for the purposes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... decided to dispose off the Alwarpet property, which was acquired by her by way of an irrevocable POA, by paying advance only and hence, the sale of Alwarpet property by the owner under the said POA in any way cannot be construed as a sale by the appe1lant. It is an understanding between one individual and another and hence, this aspect as held by the Assessing Officer in the impugned order does not have any base. Further, when a property was agreed to be sold for Rs. 75.00 lakhs, i.e. in respect of the Alwarpet property, by way of a Power of Attorney, I am unable to understand as to what was the logic or reasoning that made the Assessing Officer to come to a conclusion that the same property was sold for Rs. 50.00 lakhs within a few months. In the light of the above discussions, it is held that the proceeds from the sale of the Velachery land by the appellant was held as advance for the purchase of the Alwarpet property, which had not worked in favour of the appellant for the reasons discussed above and the deal of purchase of Alwarpet property had not materialized as expected. Further that the appellant had ultimately purchased the property at Spur Tank Road, Chetpet, Chennai, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in deleting the addition of Rs. 48,94,157/-. We, therefore, confirm the order of the ld. CIT(A) and dismiss this ground of appeal of the Revenue. 7. Second issue involved in this appeal is that the ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 25 lakhs made as unexplained investment. 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record. The relevant facts are that the assessee invested Rs. 70,80,620/- in the purchase of house property at Spur Tank Road, Chetpet, Chennai on 15.11.2006. The assessee explained the source of the said investment as out of sale proceeds of property at Alwarpet. The Assessing Officer observed that as per the registered sale deed, in respect of Alwarpet property, the total consideration paid by purchaser was Rs. 50 lakhs only. According to the assessee, the sale value of the property was Rs. 75 lakhs. The Assessing Officer found the explanation of the assessee as not acceptable. He treated the source of investment in property at Chetpet to the tune of Rs. 50 lakhs only as expenditure out of sale proceeds of Alwarpet property. He, therefore, treated Rs. 25 lakhs as unexplaine ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
