9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 923X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... come Tax could not have assumed the jurisdiction u/s.263. That further, regarding contentions of the Ld. DR that section 54F pertains to the cost of acquisition of the new assets and it does not cover the cost of interior decoration, in this regard, as evident from the agreement entered into between the promoter and the assessee therein certain essential items as mentioned herein above in the order were to be carried out by the assessee himself. These expenses are necessary to suitably live in that particular flat. These expenses are necessary for habitation in that particular flat. They do not pertain to any decoration item rather they are all essential to make a flat fit for living. Reverting to the facts of the present case, expenses wer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... work done by the assessee therein. That according to the Ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, on this, neither any enquery was done by the Assessing Officer nor there was any application of mind by the Assessing Officer and therefore, order passed by the Assessing Officer according to the Ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax was erroneous so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 4. At the time of hearing, the Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that at Page 88 of the Paper book filed before us, there is a detailed questionnaire issued by the Assessing Officer along with notice u/s.142(1) of the Act wherein Point Nos. 6 and 7 states as follows: "6. You have claimed deduction u/s.54F of ₹ 10 crores, however, no evidence ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessing Officer is not erroneous and also not prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. For this proposition, the Ld. AR has placed reliance on the following decisions: (i) CIT Vs. Fine Jewellery (I) Ltd., 372 ITR 303 (Bom.) (ii) CIT Vs.Sunbeam Auto Ltd., 332 ITR 167 (Delhi) 5.1 The Ld. AR of the assessee further took us to the assessment order and referred to Paras 5.1, 5.2, 5.3 and 5.4 and submitted that it is evident that the Assessing Officer had asked to produce evidences in support of sale consideration, cost of acquisition and proof of deduction u/s.54F of the Act in respect of sale of land. The assessment order also states, assessee submitted the copy of sale and purchase deed and agreement of property purchased for resident ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i) Saleem Fazebhoy Vs. DCIT, 108 TTJ 0894 ( Mum.) 8. We have perused the case records and heard the rival contentions. We have also considered the judicial pronouncements placed before us. In this case, revisionary jurisdiction u/s.263 of the Act has been assumed by the Ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax on the issue that regarding claim of deduction u/s.54F of the Act by the assessee, necessary enquiry were not conducted and whether cost of interior decoration was allowable or not, these were not specifically enquired into by the Assessing Officer while framing assessment and therefore, the Ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax held the order of the Assessing Officer is erroneous so as to be prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 9. Pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r considered the decision in the case of Idea Cellular Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. (2008) 301 ITR 407 ( Bom.) and held that if query is raised during assessment proceedings and responded to by the assessee, mere fact that it is not dealt with in AO would not lead to a conclusion that no mind had been applied to it." 11. That further, the Hon"ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (supra.) has held that "if there is an enquiry, even inadequate, that would not by itself give occasion to the CIT to pass order under s.263, merely because he has a different opinion in the matter. In this case, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court made distinction between "lack of enquiry" and "inadequate enquiry". In the iss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entitled to make deduction in respect of additions/alterations made to property after purchase in order to have normal living in computing deduction u/s.54F, when no such restriction has been provided u/s.54F, property purchased by the assessee was habitable but had lacked certain amenities so assessee spent nearly about ₹ 18 Lakhs towards repairs, Section 54F provide that if cost of new asset had to be taken into consideration while determining capital gain, words used as "cost of new asset" and not "consideration for acquisition of the new asset", it was permissible for assessee to acquire vacant site and put up construction thereon and cost of new asset would be cost of land plus(+) cost of construction. Therefore, assessee would ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
