9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 1056X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... invested in favour of the spouse concerned. Coupled with this, CIT(A) has made it clear that the assessee had failed to prove repairs and maintenance expenditure alleged to have been paid to his relative contractor Shri Kota Ramakrishna, who could neither prove any repair activity to this effect nor genuineness of the claim as it was found that even this recipient's return had been filed belatedly to cover up the impugned issue. All these clinching findings on facts have gone un-rebutted from the assessee's side. - Decided against assessee. - I.T.A. No. 545/HYD/2020 - - - Dated:- 15-2-2022 - SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For the Appellant : S. Sandhya, AR For the Resp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e circumstances, prima facie, it would appear that the assessee has not acquired/purchased any property i.e., new residential house, during the FY 2010-11 relevant to the impugned AY 2011-12. As such, the assessee has claimed exemption u/s. 54F of the Act on account of acquisition of a gifted property but without incurring any expenditure towards sale consideration of the property. Thus, the claim of the assessee is baseless and devoid of merits. 7.11 Alternatively, it may be noted that, in terms of the provisions of sub-sec. (4) of sec. 54F of the Act, the assessee is required to deposit the net consideration, which is not appropriated by the assessee towards purchase of new asset within one year before the date of transfer of the ori ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... indeed incurred the expenditure towards development/renovation of the gifted property. 7.14 At this juncture, it may not be out of place to highlight the fact that the contractor Sri Kota Ramakrishna had filed the returns of income both for the AYs 2011-12 and 2012-13 belatedly on 29.03.2013. Similarly, the assessee has also filed his return of income for the impugned AY 2011-12 on the same date i.e. 29.03.2013. Also, as seen from the returns of income filed by the contractor Sri Kota Ramakrishna, he has not disclosed income/receipts from any other contract work except amount received from the assessee said to be towards development/renovation of the gifted property. 7.15 As such, It appears that the assessee has devised a plan w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... same is not considered as an admissible evidence in the eyes of the law. 7.16 In view of the aforementioned factual matrix and discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the assessee has failed to fulfill the mandatory requirements of law as envisaged u/s. 54F of the Act. Thus, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee on this issue are dismissed . 3. Learned authorised representative vehemently contended during the course of hearing that the assessee had re-invested his capital gain both in residential property by way of obtaining gift from his wife and repairs and maintenance incurred thereupon so as to be eligible for Section 54F deduction. We find no merit in the assessee's arguments as it has come on record that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
