9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 794X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the AO merely on suspicion, doubts and surmises without bringing any concrete evidence, simply rejecting the contentions of the assessee - HELD THAT:- We are of the considered view that the onus always lies upon the assessee who seeks deduction of expenses. The assessee has to prove the genuineness of the expenditure claimed towards indexed cost of improvement. In this case, the assessee has failed to prove the genuineness of the expenditure and, therefore, it was not correct, judicially, for ld. CIT(A) allowing the indexed cost of improvement made to the asset sold. We do not find any merit in the findings of the ld. CIT(A) on this issue and the same is reversed. Ground No.2 of appeal of the Revenue stands allowed. Exemption u/s 54F - The findings of the ld. CIT(A) is devoid and bereft of any merit allowing benefit of exemption u/sec. 54F which is therefore reversed and accordingly, the ground of appeal no.3 filed by the Revenue stands allowed. Deduction u/sec. 54EC - time limit for investment exceeded - HELD THAT:- The issue is covered by the decision of CIT vs. Coromandal Industries Limited [ 2014 (12) TMI 852 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] as held from a reading of Section 54 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... though the proviso under specify the upper limit of 50 lakh. 5. For these and such other grounds as may be urged at the time of hearing, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) may be vacated and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 6. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete any of the above grounds of appeal during the course of appellate proceedings before the Hon ble Tribunal. 4. The relevant facts are that assessee is an individual, filed his return of income for A.Y. 2014-15 on 31/07/2014 declaring total income of Rs. 10,64,14,400/-. Against the returned income filed, the assessment was completed by the Assessing Officer (AO) vide order dated 29/08/2016 passed u/sec.143(3) of the Act determining total income at Rs. 14,11,34,600/-. While doing so, the AO made several disallowances. The brief background of the disallowances is as under:- During the previous year relevant to the assessment year under consideration, the assessee had sold immovable property being land admeasuring 02 acres situated at S.No.59/1/3 to one Mr. Valiullah Rahmen Shariff for a consideration of Rs. 14,64,48,000/- which was received in the form of Rs. 10 crores by cheque and 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... omputing the capital gains. At the time of hearing also, ld.AR of the assessee could not justify such share of stamp duty expenses and neither could place on record any evidence to show regarding the claim made by the assessee. In view of these facts and circumstances, we are not in conformity with the findings of the ld. CIT(A) on this issue and since he has come to a conclusion without examination of any evidence and also has failed to provide specific reasons regarding the allowability of share of stamp duty expenses while computing capital gains, the findings of the ld. CIT(A) are therefore, reversed and the addition of Rs. 17,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer is restored. Ground no.1 of Revenue s appeal stands allowed. 7. In Ground No.2, the Revenue is aggrieved with the decision of the ld.CIT(A) allowing the indexed cost of improvement of Rs. 35,40,600/- while computing the capital gains. The AO has provided categorical finding in the assessment order disallowing the same on the ground that only xerox copy of self-made vouchers of the expenditure were submitted by the assessee and no proof of payment and source of such payment were filed before the AO. The ld. CIT(A), ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds as under: Provided further that the investment made by an assessee in the long term specified asset, from capital gains arising from transfer of one or more original assets, during the financial year in which the original asset or assets are transferred and in the subsequent financial year does not exceed fifty lakh rupees. ......... 10. The legislature has chosen to remove the ambiguity in the proviso to Section 54EC(1) of the Act by inserting a second proviso with effect from 1.4.2015. The memorandum explaining the provisions in the Finance (No.2) Bill, 2014 also states that the same will be applicable from 1.4.2015 in relation to assessment year 2015-16 and the subsequent years. The intention of the legislature probably appears to be that this amendment should be for the assessment year 2015-2016 to avoid unwanted litigations of the previous years. Even otherwise, we do not wish to read anything more into the first proviso to Section 54EC(1) of the Act, as it stood in relation to the assessees. 11. In any event, from a reading of Section 54EC(1) and the first proviso, it is clear that the time limit for investment is six months from the date of transfer an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
