9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 184X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vidence in support of the cost of construction of new residential house. Assessee submitted that the Schedule of property in original sale deed dated 7.4.2017 itself shows that assessee has purchased the Site No.20 at Cholanayakanahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk situated within Ward No.96 Guddadahalli Main Road, BMP, measuring East to West: Northern Side 37 ft, Southern Side : 45 ft., and North to South : Eastern side 78 ft. and on the Western side 94 ft. along with two squares A.C Sheet shed with electric amenity and the same was sold vide Sale Deed dated 29.8.2012. Being so, in our opinion, the CIT(Appeals) is not justified in holding that the property sold was not a residential house. We are of the opinion that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have referred the Issue to the department valuer officer to ascertain the cost of the new construction in the principles of natural justice and decided the quotation of deduction u/s 54 of the Act. 5) The learned CIT (A) ought to have held that the Assessee was entitled to the deduction u/s 54 of the Act on the cost of construction declared by the Assessee in respect of new residential property. 6) Without Prejudice, the additions are excessive, arbitrary and unreasonable and ought to be deleted in fill. 7) The learned CIT (A) erred in levying the interest u/s 234B and 234C of the Act. 8) For these and other grounds that maybe urged at time of hearing of the appeal the assessee prays that the appeal may be allowed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g CPWD rates was not accepted. Consequently, the claim for deduction u/s. 54 of the Act was disallowed and a total income of ₹ 66,14,070/- was determined. 3. On the claim of deduction u/s. 54 of the Act, the CIT(Appeals) observed that had sold Original Asset being a Vacant Site during the FY 2012-13 but relevant Sale Deed appears to have not been produced before the AO in support of the Proof of Sale for a consideration amounting to ₹ 79,72,000/- which was claimed to have been reinvested in construction of a new Residential Property on a Revenue Site which appears to have been owned by the assessee as seen from the Sale Deed dated 07-08-2011. In the absence of the Sale Deed it cannot be seen whether the Original Asset sold wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e by the assessee that the original asset was a residential house, deduction u/s. 54 of the Act was admissible and upheld the order of AO. Against this, the assessee is in appeal before us. 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. In this case, the claim of assessee u/s. 54 was denied on the reason that assessee has not filed any supporting evidence to show the sale consideration was reinvested in new residential property. Before us, the ld. AR pointed out to the copies of bank statements and submitted that the amount is accounted out of sale consideration towards construction of new residential house and deduction u/s. 54 has to be granted. However, the assessee has not produced the relevant bills, vouchers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
