9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 523X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... right over the property or assessee has actually made investment towards construction of house property. - Decided against assessee. Non-consideration of part of cost of acquisition of immovable property for computing capital gain - Held that:- That assessee’s claim of incurring an amount of ₹ 4,32,720 as cost of construction, requires to be considered afresh in view of additional evidence submitted by assessee by way of confirmation letter dated 28/01/12 from Parsn Foundation Pvt. Ltd. Accordingly, we set aside the order of ld. CIT(A) on this issue and remit the matter back to the file of AO for deciding the same afresh after due opportunity of hearing to assessee. - DEcided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes. - ITA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsideration of ₹ 76 lakh and deposited the entire sale consideration into his S.B. Account with ICICI Bank. AO observed that as per the provision contained u/s 54(2), assessee has not deposited the sale consideration in capital gain account scheme, 1988. When AO called upon assessee to explain the reason for not doing so, it was submitted by assessee being unaware of the legal position, the sale consideration was deposited in SB account. Assessee further submitted that he has entered into agreement with his father, who is the owner of Plot No. 283 in Sy. Nos. 125 126 of Yousufguda village for construction of house. Assessee submitted, as the amount of ₹ 50,37,209 was utilized by assessee towards construction of house, he is el ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le as owner of the plot is assessee s father and as per the agreement, assessee has only requested his father for construction of residential house to which his father has agreed. However, the agreement which is an unregistered one, does not make it clear that any legal right has been conferred on assessee as far as ownership of the property is concerned. Ld. CIT(A) observed, as assessee is not having any legal right over the property in which assessee claimed to have constructed house, deduction claimed u/s 54 cannot be allowed. 5. Ld. AR more or less reiterating the submissions made before the departmental authorities, submitted, as far as non-compliance to section 54(2) is concerned, that cannot prevent assessee from getting deduction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sale proceeds in construction of new house, same cannot be accepted as neither assessee is owner of the property nor there is any evidence to suggest that assessee has utilized the capital gain in construction of house. He submitted, the bank account copy only shows withdrawals but for what purpose they have been utilized has not been substantiated with any documentary evidence , hence, the claim of assessee that the amounts withdrawn were utilized for construction of house cannot be accepted. 7. We have considered the submissions of the parties and perused the orders of revenue authorities as well as other materials on record. Undisputedly, assessee has not deposited the sale proceeds received by him from sale of immovable property in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . As far as decisions relied upon by ld. AR is concerned, there is no dispute to the principles laid down therein. However, as can be seen from the decision of ITAT, Mumbai Bench in case of JCIT Vs. Smt. Armeda K. Bhaya (supra), the property was not only purchased in the name of assessee along with two other persons, namely, his father and mother, but, father and mother in fact submitted affidavits giving up their rights over the said property and also admitting the fact that entire investment in purchase of the property has been made by assessee. Whereas in the facts of the present case, no documentary evidence has been brought on record to establish the fact that assessee s father has given up his right over the property or assessee has a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Total 8,00,000 To substantiate its claim assessee submitted that the land cost alone cannot be the cost of flat, since construction cost is to be paid separately. It was submitted by assessee that it has paid the amount of ₹ 4,32,720 towards construction cost and in this regard a confirmation letter issued by Parsn Foundation Pvt. Ltd. was submitted. Ld. CIT(A), however, was not convinced with the submissions of assessee. He observed that confirmation letter submitted by assessee is neither in the nature of any receipt nor it establishes as to how the said amount was paid. Accordingly, refusing to take cognizance of the said confirm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
