9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 733X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sion of certain facts/ documents to prove construction activity being carried out by it on the land purchased and the direction of the ITAT being that the assessee be allowed exemption even if construction is incomplete, we consider it fit to restore the matter back to the AO, giving the assessee one more opportunity to prove its claim of exemption under section 54F. AO is directed to examine the issue afresh in accordance with the directions of the ITAT in the first round. The assessee is directed to cooperated in the proceedings failing which the AO is at liberty to reiterate his order passed earlier. Matter is restored back subject to levy of cost of Rs. 1000/- on the assessee for giving no plausible reason for not attending the assessment as well as appellate proceedings. Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. - Smt. Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member And Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate For the Revenue : Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr. DR ORDER PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER This is Assessee s appeal against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(A), Delhi dated 26.07.2023 passed un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed for adjudication arising in the present appeal which has come up before us in second round, relates to the disallowance of claim of exemption of capital gains under section 54F of the Act amounting to Rs. 59,32,904/-. 7. The facts pertaining to the same being that the assessee had alongwith other co-owners sold land in the impugned year for Rs. 2,29,46,000/-, his share in the same being Rs. 64,75,000/- .The assessee had computed capital gains earned thereon and claimed exemption thereof under section 54F of the Act on account of investment of the capital gains in a new residential property amounting to Rs. 59,32,904/-. The AO noted that the assessee had purchased two plots of land prior to the selling of old asset for Rs. 67,19,250/- and Rs. 67,14,600/- and noting that the investment in land had been made prior to the selling of original asset, and also noting that no documentary evidences towards construction of the residential house, which was necessary condition for claiming exemption under section 54F of the Act, was filed by the assessee, he denied the assessee s claim of exemption. The same was confirmed by the ld.CIT(A) in the first round, but the ITAT restored the issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns ranges from purchase of only plot of land and no evidence of construction cost tagged thereon to objection in the form of purchase of plot prior to transfer of original asset in derogation of condition stipulated under S. 54F of the Act whereby deployment of funds in construction activity only after the transfer of original asset is eligible for relief. These objections recorded by CIT(A) as extracted supra are essentially factual in nature. The money stated to be utilized and appropriated towards purchase of plot of land and construction of residential house thereon after the transfer of original asset in terms of S. 54F is required to be ascertained to determine the eligibility of claim. In the absence of factual details before us, we are unable to address the factual controversies involved. It was asserted on behalf of the assessee that the construction of a residential house has been eventually completed. Copies of some electricity bills were produced to lend support to such assertions. However, a bare reading of S. 54F would suggest that construction of house beyond stipulated time limit of 3 years is not the only condition precedent for eligibility of deduction claimed. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessee, and accordingly, the ld.CIT(A) passed an ex parte order confirming the addition made by the AO. The pleadings of the ld.counsel for the assessee before us was that, the assessee be granted one more opportunity to make out its case. It was pointed out that in the first round itself, the ITAT had noted that the assessee was in possession of the evidences of construction of new property by way of some electricity bills, which were noted in the order of the ITAT to have been filed by the assessee. The contention of the ld.counsel for the assessee was also that the CIT(A) s order is ex parte and therefore is without considering the submissions, which the assessee wants to make in support of its case. 11. The ld.DR vehemently objected to the same, stating that the assessee had not cooperated even before the AO, and there was no occasion to give the assessee another opportunity to prove its claim. Without prejudice to his objection, he stated that instead of the issue being restored to the ld.CIT(A), it may be restored to the AO, since the facts, if any brought out by the assessee in support of its claim of the exemption would need verification. 12. We have heard contentions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
