9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (5) TMI 638X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee. On the contrary, we find from the Departmental paper book itself that the assessee did furnish Fine Living Residential House A/c. as on 30-09-2014 with investment of ₹ 1.42 crore as on 30-09-2014. Thus, this view point of the ld. PCIT also does not stand. Another objection taken by the ld. PCIT is that the assessee claimed purchase cost of Plot Nos.28 and 29 in the sum total for the purposes of exemption u/s.54F, whereas the permission for construction was taken only in respect of Plot No.28. As seen that both the plots, namely, 28 and 29 were simultaneously purchased and are adjacent to each other. The assessee has claimed that both the plots were used for construction of new residential house. Simply because the application for construction was given only with reference to Plot No.28, the claim for actual investment in Plot No.29, qualifying for exemption u/s.54F, cannot be denied. Be that as it may, even if we proceed with the presumption that the assessee constructed new residential house only on Plot No.28, still Plot No.29 adjacent to new residential house will form part of new residential house thus entitling the assessee to exemption pro tanto . ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 013 (Daregaon Land) for a consideration of ₹ 1.30 crore, which had been purchased in the year 2004 for a sum of ₹ 4,73,880/-. After indexation, the assessee had computed the long term capital gain of ₹ 1,20,72,972/- and thereafter claimed exemption u/s.54F towards investment of ₹ 1,42,05,400/- on construction of a new residential house. The ld. PCIT noticed that the assessee obtained the permission from Municipal Council, Jalna on 20-08-2014 for commencement of construction on a plot which was purchased on 17-12-2013. It was thus opined that the AO wrongly allowed exemption u/s.54F because the assessee did not submit Completion certificate towards construction of the new residential house during the course of assessment. It was still further noticed from the relevant certificate that the construction of new residential house was to be commenced on Plot No.28 only whereas the assessee included cost of Plot No.29 also for computing the cost of construction in claiming exemption u/s.54F of the Act. The ld. PCIT thus came to hold that the AO did not conduct any enquiry on this issue. 3. On being show caused, the assessee put forth that the details of sal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... there is again a reference to the assessee furnishing the necessary details, such as, commencement certificate of new residential house constructed along with approved plan on 20-08-2014 in support of the claim for exemption u/s.54F. In response to the AO s query, the assessee furnished the relevant details vide his letter dated 22-08-2016, a copy of which has been placed at page 2 onwards of the departmental paper book. Point No.3 in this letter states about the investment of the amount of sale consideration received of Daregaon Land in construction of residential house at Fine Living, Jalna. The Fine Living residential house ledger account for the F.Y. 2013-14 F.Y. 2014-15 is enclosed herewith as Annexure-3. The copy of fine living plot purchased is also enclosed with this letter as Annexure-3. There crept some dispute about the contents of Annexure-3 before the Tribunal. We go with the copy of Annexure-3, taken from the assessment folder, as produced by the ld. DR. The Annexure-3 is a copy of the ledger account of Fine Living Residential House A/c. as on 30-09-2014 , which shows total investment amounting to ₹ 1,42,05,404/-. Thus, it is discernible that the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ondition cannot be read in the provision, as has been canvassed by the ld. PCIT. 7. The other objection taken by the ld. PCIT is that the assessee claimed to have invested a sum of ₹ 1.42 crore which was not reflected either in the balance sheet or in the capital account of the assessee. On the contrary, we find from the Departmental paper book itself that the assessee did furnish Fine Living Residential House A/c. as on 30-09-2014 with investment of ₹ 1.42 crore as on 30-09-2014. Thus, this view point of the ld. PCIT also does not stand. 8. Another objection taken by the ld. PCIT is that the assessee claimed purchase cost of Plot Nos.28 and 29 in the sum total of ₹ 1.42 crore for the purposes of exemption u/s.54F, whereas the permission for construction was taken only in respect of Plot No.28. It is seen that both the plots, namely, 28 and 29 were simultaneously purchased and are adjacent to each other. The assessee has claimed that both the plots were used for construction of new residential house. Simply because the application for construction was given only with reference to Plot No.28, the claim for actual investment in Plot No.29, qualifying for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
