9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 661X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as ignored the other evidence on record which prove construction and completion of construction of a residential house. Merely because the sale deed had not been executed or that construction is not complete and it is not in a fit condition to be occupied does not disentitle the assessee to claim s. 54F relief. As in SAMBANDAM UDAYKUMAR [ 2012 (3) TMI 80 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] followed similar decision rendered by the Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of Sardarmal Kothari [ 2008 (6) TMI 15 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] . We are therefore of the view that even on the basis of non-completion of construction of the new asset within the period of 3 years, the deduction u/s.54 of the Act cannot be denied to the Assessee. In the present case, we are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng a residential house, the income of which is chargeable under the head "Income from house property" (referred to in Sec.54 of the Act as the original asset), and the assessee has (i) within a period of one year before, or (ii) two years after the date on which the transfer took place (a) purchased, or (b) has within a period of three years after that date constructed, a residential house, then, capital gain will be allowed as deduction to the extent of Long-Term Capital Gains OR to the extent of amount invested in the purchase or construction of the new residential house. whichever is less. 3. The undisputed facts are that the assessee was a co-owner of residential house. By a Sale Deed dated 30.10.2009, the aforesaid prop ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ever, recomputed the income from Long Term Capital Gains at ₹ 25,59,560/- by varying the assessee' share of consideration to ₹ 48,00,000/- as against ₹ 40,00,000/- reported by the assessee. Thus, the AO computed the long term capital gains before deduction u/s.54 of the Act at ₹ 25,59,560/- as against the sum of ₹ 17,59,560/- reported by the assessee. 6. The AO thereafter noticed that the assessee had purchased a residential property for ₹ 39,41,120/- and compared this figure with the capital gains of ₹ 25,59,560/- arrived at by him. He then made an addition of ₹ 13,81,560/- under the head "Income from Other Sources" being the difference between the investment in the new house and t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... graph of the same can be taken by standing beside that. • The structure shown in the photograph appears to be just a temporary storage shed which is normally made for the storage of construction material before starting construction. Thus the photograph does not reveal that the structure made on the property can be considered as a residential house. • The appellant has not given any occupation certificate if any residential house was constructed by him. 4.12 Thus the details produced by the appellant do not show that an residential house was constructed on the plot of land by 29.10.2012. It can only be concluded that the appellant had applied for permission for construction on 21.02.2012 and the same was granted by BDA on 03 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of property tax, usage of electricity for the period from Sept. 2012 to Feb. 2013, all go to show that the property existed over the site purchased by the assessee. All these evidence go to show that assessee had put up structure over the site purchased by him. The CIT(A) has come to a conclusion that the Assessee did not construct a residential house within a period of 3 years from the date of transfer of the original asset, on the basis that the photograph filed as evidence does not reveal that the construction of the house was on the plot of land purchased by the Assessee and that there was no completion certificate produced to substantiate the claim of the Assessee regarding completion of construction of a residential house. In our vi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ucted'. The condition precedent for claiming benefit u/s 54F is that the capital gain should be parted by the assessee and invested either in purchasing a residential house or in constructing a residential house. Merely because the sale deed had not been executed or that construction is not complete and it is not in a fit condition to be occupied does not disentitle the assessee to claim s. 54F relief. The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court followed similar decision rendered by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Sardarmal Kothari 302 ITR 286 (Mad). We are therefore of the view that even on the basis of non-completion of construction of the new asset within the period of 3 years, the deduction u/s.54 of the Act cannot be denied to the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
