9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 452X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .CIT(A), the assessee is having more than two houses, therefore, the assessee is not entitled to any claim u/s. 54F of the I.T.Act. In the light of the above, the assessee has no case of merit, which is duly mentioned by the ld.CIT(A) in the order passed by him. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. - ITA.No.302/Hyd/2020 - - - Dated:- 24-1-2023 - Shri Rama Kanta Panda, Accountant Member AND Shri Laliet Kumar, Judicial Member For the Assessee : None For the Revenue : Shri Kumar Aditya, Sr.AR ORDER PER SHRI LALIET KUMAR, J.M. This is appeal filed by the Assessee, feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Hyderabad, dated 29.05.2017 for the AY 2013-14, on the fol ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Consideration in Rs. Sri K.V.G.L.V Prasada, Sri K.b.Tilak, Sri K.Vijaya Mohan and Smt. Abbineni Anasuya 300 Sq.Yard in Plot bearing No.232 in Survey No.104/1, Venkateshwara HAL Co-Operative society, Kondapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal 13818/2003 dt. 01.11.2003 150000 Do 300 Sq.Yard in Plot bearing NO.231 in Survey NO.104/1, Venkateshwara HAL co-Operative Society, Kondapur village 12563/2003 dt. 30.09.2003 150000 The description of the properties are delineated in the schedule of deed as follows: The Purchase ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duction u/s. 54F of the Act. 6.Sale consideration: The SRO value of the property is Rs.78,00,000/-. Hence as per the provisions of section 50C, the sale consideration should be taken as Rs.78,00,000/-. The assessee was asked why the market value of the both the properties amounting to Rs. 78,00,000/- should not be taken as sale consideration for the purpose of capital gains as per provisions of section 50C of the I.T. Act. 6.2 It was argued that the properties sold by the assessee are under litigation as Smt. P. Vijaya Laxmi and three others contested the ownership of the land and filed a suit in the court of Senior Civil Judge, R.R. Dist. requesting the Hon'ble Judge to cancel the sale deed in respect of properties purchased ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sideration on transfer, the same is to be adopted for the purposes of computing capital gains. Thus the statute mandates adoption of guidelines value as determined by the stamp and registration authority. Thus, the AO is justified in adopting the guidelines value. Hence ground no.s 4 and 5 are dismissed. 7.1 Claim of deduction u/s 54: Verification of both the purchase deed and sale deed indicate that the assessee purchased and sold vacant plots only. The relevant purchase deed clearly mentioned that the properties purchased by the assessee during the F.Y. 2003-04 are vacant plots only . The properties sold are same plots of land only. However, the assessee pleaded that the property sold is a house property only and furnished copies of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t claimed in original return of income. The assessee again filed a fresh revised computation wherein further claimed expenditure of Rs.4,15,374/- paid on 25.08.2008 under urban land ceiling Act in respect of properties sold. It was stated that she has inadvertently omitted to claim the cost of improvement. 7.3 It clearly shows that it is an after-thought and the act is orchestrated to claim exemption u/s 54 of the LT. Act. Further the contention that there are no photographs attached to sale deed in respect of properties purchased in year 2003 is not acceptable because both in the purchase deeds and sale deeds, it was clearly mentioned as an open plot only. The small open structure cannot be treated as a residential house. 7. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessment proceedings, furnished valuation report and respect of two plots sold wherein it was clearly mentioned that properties sold where plots only. Further, when assessee himself stated that the plots purchased are under dispute, it is not clear how she constructed a house before clearance of this litigation. Considering the above facts, it is clear the assessee sold a vacant plot only and not residential house and hence the assessee is not eligible for deduction u/s 54 of the I. T. Act. Thus, ground no 1,2 and 3 are dismissed. 8. Alternate claim of Deduction u/s 54F: Alternatively the assessee claimed deductions is] s 54 F of the LT. Act. It is pertinent to mention here th.at assessee is having more than one house as o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
