9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 1036X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tional evidences to support his contentions - These additional evidences are required to be examined by the AO - In view of the contradiction between the parties with regard to the facts relating to the issue, it also requires to be examined afresh - The issue has been restored for fresh adjudication. - I.T.A. 229/Coch/2012 - - - Dated:- 17-1-2014 - Shri N. R. S. Ganesan, JM And B. R. Baskaran, AM,JJ. For the Petitioner : Shri C.B.M. Warrier, CA For the Respondent : Shri K. K. John, Sr. DR ORDER Per B. R. Baskaran, Accountant Member: The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 14- 06-2012 passed by Ld CIT(A)-III, Kochi and it relates to the assessment year 2008-09. 2. The assessee is aggrieved by the decision of Ld CIT(A) in not granting deduction u/s 54F of the Act in respect of capital gain realized on sale of a land. 3. The facts relating to the issue under consideration are stated in brief. The assessee along with seven other persons sold a property admeasuring 1.46 acres located at Kasargod. The assessee had 1/8th share in the above said property and accordingly received Rs.68,43,750/- as his share in the sale consideration. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stated that, subsequently during the period from December 2007 to April 2010, additional constructions along with the finishing works like flooring, painting, polishing and plumbing works were executed. The Registered valuer had estimated the cost of whole building at Rs.62,54,101/-. Before the AO, the assessee submitted that the estimated cost of addition/extension was Rs.30,00,000/-. The AO further noticed that the assessee had availed loan from Union Bank of India, Kasargod branch for construction purposes on various dates as detailed below:- On 11.8.2001 - Rs.25,00,000 On 14.7.2004 - Rs. 7,50,000 On 18.10.2006 - Rs. 5,00,000 Accordingly, the AO took the view that the assessee had started construction of the building from 11.8.2001 itself. Further the AO took the view that most of the work might have been by Dec., 2006. The AO also noticed that the plan approved by the local authority will be valid for three years only. The AO also noticed that the assessee did not furnish the details of date of commencement and completion of the construction before him. Further, the assessing officer also made following observations:- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rther submitted that the housing loan earlier availed by him was closed by remitting the amount from the sale proceeds of the land. He further submitted that the construction of the building, though started in 2001, yet only the super structure was completed. Only during the year under construction, the building was made ready along with the additional construction. The Ld CIT(A) took the view that the deduction u/s 54F of the Act is available for purchase or construction of a new house and is not available for alteration / extension of the existing building. In this regard, he placed reliance on the following case law:- CIT Vs. Pradeep Kumar (153 Taxman 138)(Mad) Mrs. Meera Jacob Vs. ITO (313 ITR 411)(Ker). Accordingly, the Ld CIT(A) held that the assessee is not eligible for deduction u/s 54F of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee has filed this appeal before us. 5. The Ld A.R submitted that the assessee had started the construction of the building in the year 2001, but could not complete the same fully. A lot of work including flooring, painting, polishing, plumbing works were pending. He submitted that the assessee completed those works only during the period from Dec. 200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... F of the Act on extension of the existing building and in this regard, he placed reliance on the decision of Jurisdictional Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Meera Jacob (313 ITR 411) and Pushpa Vs. IT) (Order dated 22.8.2012 (2012)( 268 KLR 322). The Ld D.R further submitted that the assessee is not eligible for deduction u/s 54F of the Act in respect of deposit made in Capital gains account scheme, since it was not proved that the amount so deposited was used for construction purposes. 7. We have heard rival contentions and carefully perused the record. We notice that the tax authorities have taken the view that the assessee has only carried out renovation / extension of the existing building. Accordingly, the tax authorities have taken the view that the deposit made in Capital gain account scheme for carrying out renovation / extension of the existing building is not eligible for deduction u/s 54F, since the said section provides for deduction only for either purchase or construction of a new residential house. Further, it was contended by the Ld D.R that the assessee has not proved that the amount deposited in the Capital gains account scheme was used for construction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
