9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 1098X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fficer nor the ld CIT(A) has verified the evidence, when the burden has been shifted by the assessee on the revenue on the basis of exemption claimed by the assessee where the particulars of civil engineer as well as name and address of the labourer have been given. The Assessing Officer has not issued any query letter to confirm the expenses as genuine. He simply discarded the evidence filed by the assessee, which is not permitted under the law. Even this indexed cost on boundary wall is not allowed by the lower authorities then the investment in two flats is about ₹ 42,92,921/-. The assessee invested much more than the capital gain calculated by the Assessing Officer, therefore, this addition is not called for. - Decided in favour of assessee - ITA No. 606/JP/2013 - - - Dated:- 18-3-2016 - SHRI T.R.MEENA, AM and SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JM For The Assessee : Shri O.P. Agarwal and Shri Tarun Mittal (CA) For The Revenue : Smt. Neena Jeph (JCIT) ORDER PER T.R. MEENA, A.M. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 11/04/2013 of the learned CIT(A)-II, Jaipur for A.Y. 2008-09. The effective grounds of appeal are as under:- 1. On t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it was found that the sale deed was executed by the assessee on 20/12/2007, which shows that the assessee had sold out a plot of land measuring 836.10 sq. mtrs situated at 123-Green Park Scheme Badchela Jagatpura, Sanganer, Jaipur to one Shri Amit Dube for consideration of ₹ 50 lacs. The assessee was given reasonable opportunity of being heard on this issue. It was claimed by the assessee before the Assessing Officer that he purchased this house on 02/3/2003 for ₹ 6,26,000/-, which was paid through bank account. The assessee paid conversion charges of ₹ 55,000/- on 01/10/2004 to JDA and also claimed cost of development at ₹ 94,000/- on the basis of self serving paper signed by one Shri Anil Shukla claiming him as Civil Engineer. There is no identity and address of the person making calculation of ₹ 94,325/- as development charges of boundary wall over the said plot. This paper/calculation sheet does not bear the date of work carried out and the date on which the calculation had been made. No supporting bills of expenses borne for the above development work had been produced. In the sale deed, there is no description about any boundary wall, therefore, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. 514, fifth floor, Balaji Tower-III, for ₹ 20,72,957/- and flat No. 208, Second Floor, Balaji Tower-III for ₹ 19,61,294 and total payment has been received by it at ₹ 40,34,251/-. The assessee again asked before the Assessing Officer that whole amount is deductible U/s 54 of the Act for which he relied on the two decisions i.e. CIT Vs. K.G. Rukminiamma (ITA No. 783/2008), HC, Karnataka and CIT Vs Sardarmal Kothari 302 ITR 286 HC, Madras. The ld Assessing Officer held that as per provisions of Section 54, the assessee can claim deduction U/s 54 of the Act on one residential house. The assessee was having house property situated at 72, Income Tax Colony, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur from which he is enjoying rental income, which has been declared in his return of income. Therefore, he allowed deduction U/s 54 of the ct on flat No. 514, Fifth Floor, Balaji Tower-III, Jawahar Circle, Jaipur for ₹ 22,07,707/-. Accordingly, he calculated capital gain at ₹ 19,33,831/-. 3. Being aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter before the ld CIT(A), who had allowed the appeal partly by observing that the benefit U/s 54 of the Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee claimed during the assessment proceedings deduction U/s 54F on second house also, which is not permitted under the law. As the assessee has not disclosed the second flat purchased in computation of total income by the assessee. Further whatever evidence given by the assessee are on simple paper for cost of boundary/improvement, which are not verifiable. Therefore, order of the ld CIT(A) may please be confirmed. 6. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on the record. As per Assessing Officer s order, the case was selected under the CASS. The total capital gain as per working of assessee before the Assessing Officer were ₹ 40,33,631/-. The assessee had purchased two flats in Balaji Tower-III i.e. flat No. 514 on fifth floor of the building for ₹ 20,72,957 and paid stamp duty on it at ₹ 1,31,180 and second flat i.e. flat No. 208 on 2nd floor of the building for ₹ 19,61,294 and stamp duty paid on it at ₹ 1,27,490/-. Thus, the assessee invested more than capital investment for purchase of flats. The ld. CIT(A) disallowed deduction U/s 54F on the basis of a residential house. This issue has been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
