9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 434X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hus was a duplex or two storied house, comprising one single residential unit. As per the grounds of appeal raised before the CIT(A), the assessee had, during the assessment proceedings, verbally requested the AO to get the house physically inspected by his counter part in Bangalore. This the AO did not do. It cannot be gainsaid that the AO is amply empowered to get such an inspection done. Apropos the AO’s observation that no approval was shown to have been obtained by the assessee, nor any payment of statutory dues had been shown to have been made by the assessee, concerning the modification to the house, it is available from the statement of facts filed before the CIT(A), that there was no question of the assessee obtaining any approval or making any payment, since the modification was done by the developer himself, as per the plans, the approval whereof was obtained directly by the developer. Otherwise also, the assessment order does not evince any query in this regard having ever been raised by the AO to the assessee The facts of the present case and the facts of the case relied upon by the AR on Addl. CIT vs. Narendra Mohan Uniyal [2009 (8) TMI 825 - ITAT, DELHI] are sl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de sale agreement cum power of attorney dated 16-09-2006 for an amount of ₹ 11,94,000/-. He also purchased plot No. 63, Diamond hills, Puppalaguda, Hyderabad admeasuring 336 Sq. yards with a built up area of 3000 sq. ft. vide sale deed dated 12-10-2006 for an amount of ₹ 19,92,000/-. The assessee has computed capital gain on sale consideration of ₹ 35 lakhs by taking cost of acquisition of ₹ 3 lakhs to arrive at capital gain of ₹ 31.16 lakhs and claimed exempt u/s 54F on reinvestment in the residential house properties. During the course of assessment u/s 143(3), the AO was of the opinion that the assessee has purchased two separate houses through two different sale deeds. He further held that Plot No. 63 and 64 are two distinct houses purchased through separate sale deeds and retained the characteristics as distinct houses. Accordingly, the AO allowed deduction on one house and denied the benefit for another house and computed the capital gain by allowing deduction to the extent of ₹ 21,81,240/- and balance amount was brought to tax. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before CIT(A)-III, Hyderabad. The CIT(A)-III, Hydera ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... learly shoes that these are two independent houses as per the schedule appended to the sale deed. But, the claim of the assessee is that, he had remodeled/reconstructed the house by making single residential unit after obtaining plan sanction and permission for construction from municipal authorities and he submitted a sanctioned copy along with permission for construction letter issued by the local authorities. A careful study of the translated copy of permission for construction letter dated 28-12-2006 indicates that the permission is for new construction. The same letter show that the construction should be completed before 28-12-2007. But the lower authorities failed to examine, whether the assessee has constructed new building or not as claimed by him within the stipulated time frame as per section 54F. The AO, just plainly observed that, the assessee has purchased two houses, hence not eligible for exemption as per the provisions of section 54F, without examining any of the conditions including the stated fact of being one building after re-construction. Without doing so, the AO just concluded the assessment based on the sale deeds, which is in my opinion not correct. 6. N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re, in the ground floor and first floor of the same property, numbered as IC-1 and IC-2. Before the AO, the assessee, on query, had contended that both the premises in fact constituted one residential unit, inasmuch as the ground floor thereof comprised one bed room, dining room, hall, kitchen, toilet and servant room and the first floor consisted of two bed rooms, hall, kitchen and two toilets. There was only one staircase, which was internal and led to the first floor. There was no independent entry to the first floor. There was only one kitchen in the entire house. It did not matter that the two floors had been purchased vide separate agreements. In fact, IC-2, i.e., the first floor was purchased just one day after the purchase of the ground floor. The house thus was a duplex or two storied house, comprising one single residential unit. As per the grounds of appeal raised before the CIT(A), the assessee had, during the assessment proceedings, verbally requested the AO to get the house physically inspected by his counter part in Bangalore. This the AO did not do. It cannot be gainsaid that the AO is amply empowered to get such an inspection done. (Para 11) Apropos the AO s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
