TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 391X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f appeal, even as he has before us been unable to state or point out any evidence which he wishes to rely upon (or to meet the Revenue s reliance on the Inspector s Report), though could not for want of opportunity. There is no application for admission of additional evidence before the first appellate authority, or even a prayer for admission of additional evidence before us, so that, as we understand, the grievance could only extend to being unable to explain the evidence being relied upon by the Revenue. AO shall decide on the basis of the material on record, issuing definite findings of fact consistent therewith, taking into account the totality of the facts and circumstances, and after allowing the assessee a reasonable opportunity ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uring the relevant year (on 18.3.2013) for ₹ 63 lacs, claiming exemption u/s. 54F (at ₹ 56,86,491) on the long-term capital gain (LTCG) arising on the said sale. The same stands denied by the Revenue on the ground that the assessee had, on the date of transfer (18.03.2013), more than one residential house, as under, disentitling him for the said claim: (a) a flat at 142, Belvedere Towers, DLF Phase II, Gurgaon; (b) a residential quarter at Bohri (Borari), Mumbai; and (c) a residential house at 102, Park View Apartments, New Delhi. The property at (a) is admitted, being in fact let by the assessee during the relevant year, returning the annual value thereof (S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the structure in April, 2012. This fact has been overlooked by the Revenue, relying on the Inspectors report dated 05/1/2016 which was in fact never confronted to the assessee, despite being requested for. The Revenue s case, on the other hand, is that the assessee had been allowed abundant opportunity; he, in fact, participating in the assessment proceeding, became recalcitrant upon detection of the untruth of his claim, and toward which there is extensive reference in the impugned order, including the remand report dated 30/3/2017. 3. We have heard the parties, and perused the material on record. The validity of the claim u/s. 54F in the present case boils down to whether the propert ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h/upon repairs, could be made habitable. The contention of the house being dilapidated also militates against the assessee s claim, again unevidenced other than the wealth-tax return, of having demolished the said house in April, 2012. There is nothing on record to show that the house was demolished during the current year, which would entail expenditure, and which should be evidenced in the normal course, besides raising the question of the house inhabited by the assessee during the current year; the assessee s only other house being let out. In fact, Sh. Nanda was specifically questioned during hearing on this as well, i.e., the house occupied by the assessee during the current year, to which he, again, could not furnish any answer. He ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... report, relied upon by the Revenue, the assessee cannot be said to have proved his case despite abundant opportunity. It is then said that the report, being dated 05/1/2016, could not be relied upon. We have already clarified that the non-confrontation of the said report would only imply that the same cannot be relied upon by the Revenue. Further, if the report states of an inhabitable structure on the said land in 2016 (as the assessment and the impugned order state), how would it help the assessee s case unless, of course, he shows that the assessee built another structure thereon, which itself would prove the demolition of the previous structure, so that the question that would still survive is of the date of the said demolition. The da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itable on 31/3/2012, become uninhabitable on 01/4/2012 or the subsequent months? 4. The assessee s case, in light of the factual matrix, is completely unproved. We may, however, in the interest of justice, particularly considering that a false claim invites penalty, remit the matter back to the file of the AO, to allow the assessee an opportunity to state his case. The Revenue, where it wishes to rely on the Inspectors report, as it does before us, shall have to necessarily provide a copy thereof to the assessee. The burden to prove his claim u/s. 54F, is though on the assessee, as well as to meet the evidence gathered or sought to be relied upon by the Revenue. The remission would also meet the assessee s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
