9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 889X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment. The verification of payment is not possible in this stage. So, the matter is returned back to the Ld. AO for further verification. Related payments of registration charges and stamp duty for amount was agitated before the bench for first time through additional grounds. The assessee claimed benefit u/s 54F related payment of registration charges and stamp duty value. The proper verification is required for this assessee s claim. AO is directed to allow benefit of the assessee u/s 54F after proper verification related those payments. Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. - ITA No.: 211/Chny/2020 - - - Dated:- 11-3-2022 - Shri G. Manjunatha, Accountant Member And Shri. Anikesh Banerjee, Judicial Member ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or amend the grounds of appeal hereinabove before or during the course of hearing of appeal. Additional Grounds of Appeal: Ground No. 5 That the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in not directing the Assessing Officer to consider cost of stamp duty and registration charges amounting to ₹ 18,40,160/- incurred at the time of purchase of new house property, as amount invested while computing the amount of exemption u/s. 54F of the Act. Ground No. 6 That the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the total investment made by the appellant in the new house property was ₹ 2,56,40,160/- and consequently erred in directing the Assessing Officer to consider cost of investment for computing exemption u/s. 54F of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of utilization of the impugned receipts towards the new capital asset for the purpose of claiming exemption u/s. 54F of the IT Act. The assessee sold immovable property for ₹ 2,60,00,000/- on 10.10.2012 and subsequently purchased a residential property on 30.11.2012 for ₹ 2,30,00,000/-. Before the AO, the sources were explained to be from followings: 1) ₹ 1,80,00,000 from sale of old property 2) ₹ 50,00,000 from HDFC Bank loan taken on 28.11.2012 The AO took a view however, that the entire sale consideration was not utilized by the assessee for the re-investment in the new house property. He also held that since the bank loan of ₹ 50,00,000/- taken from HDFC was repaid by the assessee s wife, o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... kesh Constructions. 6 Copy of savings bank account pass book for the period from 30.05.2012 to 07.06.2013. 7. The Ld. DR vehemently argued and relied upon the orders of the Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. AO. 8. We heard both the parties. It is very clear that the Ld. AO disallowed ₹ 50,00,000/- related to investment in new property through borrowed fund. The ld CIT(A) in his order mentioned the assessee s wife is repaying the loan which was borrowed for investment in property for getting the deduction U/s 54F of the Act. This issue was not adjudicated properly by any of the revenue authorities. The further verification is required in this issue. The matter is returned back to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
