9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (9) TMI 229X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... only structure and it is unfinished. The CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate the fact that the new asset is residential house property (Under Housing Scheme of RHB,) and assessee has incurred Rs. 3,34,800/- to make it liveable. Looking to the facts and circumstance of the case and disallowance of Exemption u/s 54 is unjustified and bad in law. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case CIT (Appeals) erred in disallowing registry expense of Rs. 51,900/- paid on property purchased (on new Assets). Looking to the facts and circumstance of the case and disallowance is unjustified and bad in law. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case CIT (Appeals) erred in disallowing cost of improvement incurred by the Assessee amounting to Rs. 3,34,800/-. Assessee incurred cost of improvement on property to make it liveable. Total cost of property is amounting to Rs. 12,36,700/-. This has not considered by the CIT (Appeals). Looking to the facts and circumstance of the case and disallowance is unjustified and bad in law. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, and alter any of the grounds before or during the course of hearing." 2. Ground no. 1 is regarding disallowance c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing 57 meter. Thus, the ld. AR has submitted that once there was construction of wall on the plot of land then in the claim of cost of improvement ought to have been allowed while computing the capital gain. 4. On the other hand, ld. DR has submitted that the assessee has not produced any evidence regarding any expenditure incurred for construction of boundary wall. The assessee has also not produced any documents to show as to when the boundary wall was constructed therefore, in the absence of any supporting evidence the claim of the assessee cannot be accepted. She has further submitted that even in the sale deed the description of boundary wall is added subsequently in hand written instead of type contents of sale deed. She has relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 5. We have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. Except the description of plot of land in question given in the purchase deed dated 13.09.2004 as well as sale deed dated 05.11.2008 the assessee has not produced any documentary evidence in support of the claim of expenditure incurred for construction of the alleged boundary wall. Therefore, the claim of cost of construct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... live the persons." It is pertinent to note that the assessee has purchased a residential house which was originally allotted by the Rajasthan Housing Board. Though the residential house bearing No. 192/351 Measuring 120 sq. mtr. MIG category purchased by the assessee was not fit for occupation at that point of time being a skelton unfurnished house however, the structure as constructed by the Housing Board was a residential house and thereafter the assessee has carried out the necessary work of renovation to make it habitable. The assessee has produced various documents in support of renovation work carried out in the said property after acquisition. Therefore, once the assessee has purchased a residential house which was originally allotted by the Rajasthan Housing Board and thereafter the assessee has also carried out renovation work to make the same habitable then it would be amounting to acquisition of a new residential house by the assessee. Therefore the denial of the claim by ld. CIT(A) on this ground is not justified. However, since the assessee has sold only plot of land and not a residential house, therefore, the deduction U/s 54 of the Act is not admissible but the de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld that it is the assessee who has to invest and it is not specified in the legislation that the investment is to be in the name of the assessee and where the investment is made in the name of wife, the assessee shall be eligible for deduction and has thus decided the matter in favour of the assessee. The relevant findings of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court are contained at para 7.2 and 7.3 of its order which are reproduced as under:- "7.2 On the ground of investment made by the assessee in the name of his wife, in view of the decision of Delhi High Court in Sunbeam Auto Ltd. and other judgments of different High Courts, the word used is assessee has to invest, it is not specified that it is to be in the name of assessee. 7.3 It is true that the contentions which have been raised by the department is that the investment is made by the assessee in his own name but the legislature while using language has not used specific language with precision and the second reason is that view has also been taken by the Delhi High Court that it can be in the name of wife. In that view of the matter, the contention raised by the assessee is required to be accepted with regard to Section 54B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
