9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 119X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m of the assessee in the light of the additional evidence and complete the assessment. This ground is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Disallowance of the expenditure on cost of improvement of the property sold - Held that:- The cost of improvement was allowed in the case of assessee’s husband and denied in the case of assessee. The property sold was joint property. We are inclined to remit this case back to the AO to verify the assessee’s claim and if it is proper, it should be allowed to the assessee also. Needless to say that assessee may be given proper opportunity of being heard. This ground is also allowed for statistical purposes. - ITA No. 291/Hyd/2013 - - - Dated:- 31-3-2017 - SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Assessee : Shri A.V. Raghuram For The Revenue : Smt. Suman Malik ORDER PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, A.M.: This is an appeal of the assessee directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax(A) - IV, Hyderabad, dated 11/01/2013 for AY 2009-10. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee filed her return of income for the AY 2009-10 on 31/07/2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at she was the owner of the house at Road No. 45, Jubilee Hills. However, she disputed the existence of a house at Ooty and submitted that the property at Ooty was merely land (1/2 share) without any residential house from which agricultural income had been admitted in her return. 5.3 The Assessing Officer rejected the assessee's claim for the following reasons: a. The schedule of the property as per the sale deed dtd. 11.2.2005 for the purchase of property at Ooty showed the following narration: R.S.No Total extent Extent Conveyed AC CTS AC CTS 741 J/2/1/1 5 57 12/16 0.25 6/16 together with Building thereon bearing door No. 356/A, with Asst. No. 64358 Ward No. 33, EB Service connection No. 296. b. As per statement under Rule 3(1) of the Tamilnadu Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments Rules - 1968, annexed to the sale deed showed the following narration: c. The annexure 1A of the sale deed gives the following description of the building: Partly lime and mud motor country tile, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lso not as small as security room as stated by the assessee. Thus, the assessee was owner of more than one house at the time of purchase of new property . 7.2 In response to the Assessing Officer's comments, the AR submitted that the property in Ooty consisted of 1/4th acre of land along with 130 years old structure consisting of only one floor as was evident from the photograph. The AR also submitted that the total value of the structure as per the sale deed itself was ₹ 2,00,000/- whereas the land value was ₹ 15.48 lakhs. The AR also submitted that the words first floor used in the sale deed was a typographical error and that the mere use of the word house in the sale deed should not be held against the assessee since it was common practice to refer to any structure as house for the purpose of valuation by the Sub Registrar. The AR relied on the decision in the case of ITO vs. Anjali Mehra [2007] 15 SOT 440 (Mum.) for the view that though some outhouse and hut were built but since they were in dilapidated condition and could not be occupied by the assessee for residential purposes, it could not be treated as a house. 7.3 After considering the submissions o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 's plea. The Assessing Officer has noted that the house appears to be in livable condition from the photograph and that it was not- clear whether the photograph was taken from an angle which completely covers, the house or not. The photograph itself shows two ladies standing at the entrance of a house with one wall of the house and a chimney visible in the background. In my view, no conclusions can be drawn from one single photograph which shows only one view of the house apart from showing only a portion of the house. It is, therefore held that the property at Ooty was in the nature of a residential house as a result of which the was an owner of two residential houses on the date of sale of the original asset, and therefore, not eligible for the claim of deduction u/s. 54F. 8. Ld. AR submitted similar to what was submitted in the first appellate proceedings. He further submitted that the assessee has never used the outhouse in the land for residential purpose, considering the fact that the outhouse was 130 years old and cannot be used for residential purpose. Merely, the assessee is holding land and the caretaker of the land is living in that outhouse. Merely, because th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any evidence to show that she had actually incurred the expenditure claimed. 13. After considering the submissions of the assessee as well as the remand report of the AO, the CIT(A) observed that the assessee has failed to furnish any evidence either during the appeal proceedings or in the assessment proceedings to show that firstly, she had undertaken expenditure on the claimed improvement and secondly, the expenditure amounted to ₹ 4 lakhs. He further observed that the mere fact that a compound wall and gate existed at the time of sale does not establish the assessee s claim. He, therefore, confirmed the action of the AO. 14. Ld. AR submitted that the property sold was the joint property held by the assessee and her husband. The cost of improvement was allowed in the case of her husband and denied in the case of the assessee. 15. Ld. DR relied on the order of AO. 16. Considered the rival submissions and perused the material facts on record. As submitted by ld. AR, the cost of improvement was allowed in the case of assessee s husband and denied in the case of assessee. The property sold was joint property. We are inclined to remit this case back to the AO to ver ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
