9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (6) TMI 1084X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /s. 54F - The words used in the proviso to section are any residential house . Legislature in its wisdom has excluded partial interest in the new asset. Wherever, the Legislature intended to include interest in part in any section, it has specifically provided for it. As relying on Sasiklal N. Satra [ 2005 (9) TMI 586 - ITAT MUMBAI] the authorities below have erred in not granting the benefit of section 54F to both the assessees. Both the assessees succeed on this issue. Addition from sale of trees treated as un-explained income - assessee is allegedly having agricultural land measuring 12 acres approximately, from which she has earned ₹37.85 Lakhs by sale of causarina trees - CIT(Appeals) in his order has categorically mentioned that the assessee has not placed on record any documentary evidence to show that the assessee has received any amount from sale of trees. The assessee has placed on record, confirmation letter from one Mr. Tamilarasan stating that he had contracted with the assessee for sale of trees - HELD THAT:- A perusal of the above shows that except for payment of ₹3.00 Lakhs received on 21-04-2008 which is assessable to tax in the AY. 2009-10, the rest of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e said house does not sustain. This ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed. - Dr. O.K. Narayanan, Vice President And Shri Vikas Awasthy, Judicial Member For the Appellant : Mr. S. Sridhar, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Shaji P. Jacob, Addl. CIT. ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, J.M: The assessees have filed appeals assailing the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-Tiruchirapalli, dated 12-11-2013 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2009-10 passed in the appeals of the respective assessees. The assessees are husband and wife. ITA No. 2256/2013 has been filed by Smt. K. Jothirani ITA No. 2257/2013 has been filed by Shri M. Kumarasamy, husband of Smt.K. Jothirani. In ITA No. 2256/2013, the assessee has impugned the order of CIT(Appeals) on the following grounds: i. Denial of exemption u/s. 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (herein after referred to as the Act ); ii. Income of ₹37,85,000/- received from sale of trees assessed as un-explained income; iii. Treating agricultural income of ₹30,000/- as nonagricultural income; iv. Addition of income ₹67,645/- allegedly admitted by the assessee; and v. Levy of interest u/s. 234A, 234B 234C of the Act. 2. In ITA No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Kumarasamy. In order to support his contentions, the ld. Counsel relied on the decision of the Mumbai bench of the Tribunal in the case of ITO Vs. Sasiklal N. Satra reported as 280 ITR (A.T) 243. 3. On the other hand, Shri Shaji P. Jacob, appearing on behalf of the Revenue strongly supported the orders of CIT(Appeals) in the respective appeals. The ld. DR submitted that both the assessees by including each others name in the new residential property purchased by them have made themselves ineligible for claiming exemption u/s. 54F of the Act. 4. We have heard the submissions made by the representatives of both the sides and have perused the orders of the authorities below. It is an undisputed fact that Smt. K. Jothirani has purchased a house at Mogappair, Chennai by investing the funds received by her from the sale of plots owned by her at Trichy. Similarly, it has not been disputed that the assessee Shri M. Kumarasamy has purchased a residential property at Sundar Nagar, Trichy by investing the sale proceeds of plots owned by him at Arul Solai Nagar, Trichy. Both the assessees have claimed exemption u/s. 54F. The Assessing Officer has denied exemption to the assessees on the grou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1987] 166 ITR 783, wherein, it was held that a fractional ownership was not sufficient for claiming even fractional depreciation under section 32 of the Act . Therefore, in our considered opinion, the authorities below have erred in not granting the benefit of section 54F to both the assessees. Both the assessees succeed on this issue. 5. The other issues raised in ITA No. 2256/2013 are addition of ₹37.85 Lakhs from sale of trees treated as un-explained income. The assessee is allegedly having agricultural land measuring 12 acres approximately, from which she has earned ₹37.85 Lakhs by sale of causarina trees. The CIT(Appeals) in his order has categorically mentioned that the assessee has not placed on record any documentary evidence to show that the assessee has received any amount from sale of trees. The assessee has placed on record, confirmation letter from one Mr. Tamilarasan stating that he had contracted with the assessee for sale of trees. After deducting his commission, he has paid the sale proceeds of the trees collected from various persons to the assessee. The assessee has produced receipts acknowledged by her husband as under: Date Amount Received 18/2/2008 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uasive reason. We do not find any merit in the submissions made by the ld. Counsel on this ground of appeal, therefore, the same is dismissed. 8. In ITA No. 2257/2013, apart from the issue of exemption u/s. 54F which has already been discussed above, additions were made on account of: - Income from sale of trees ₹22,00,000/-; - Un-explained investment ₹11,03,608/-. The assessee has assailed the addition of ₹22.00 Lakhs from the sale of trees as un-explained income. After perusal of impugned order and the assessment order it is evident that the assessee has not produced any reliable evidence to show the sale of trees. The Assessing Officer has made detailed enquiry from the locals and Village Administrative Officer (VAO) with regard to nature of activities being carried out by assessee on the agricultural land. The Revenue records as well as statement recorded by Assessing Officer are contrary to the claim of assessee. Except for the statement of assessee and the confirmation letter given by one Shri Thangasamy, there is nothing on record to show that the assessee has earned income from sale of trees. The contents of the confirmation letter are not supported by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
