TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 2256X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the ld. CIT (Appeals) that the land sold was agricultural in nature and would not be capital asset within the meaning of Section 2(14). In support of this assessee placed before ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) a number of records to substantiate such claim. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) declined to admit the claim made by the assessee, citing a reason that Rule 46A did not permit admission of additional evidence, due to assessee s failure to produce the evidence before the ld. Assessing Officer . However, a reading of the assessment order clearly show that assessee s representative had mentioned loss of documents provided by the client to him in the Chennai floods. If the land sold by the assessee was indeed agri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed by the assessee, directed against an order dated 01.09.2017 of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)- 16, Chennai, it has taken altogether eight grounds of which grounds 1, 7 8 are general, needing no specific adjudication. 2. Through its grounds 2 to 4, assessee assails disallowance of a claim made by her u/s.54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act ) on long term capital gains. Through its grounds 5 6, assessee assails the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in so far as he declined to admit her claim that the land sold which gave rise to the gains was an agricultural one and hence outside the ambit of levy of capital gains tax. 3. Facts apropos are that assessee had filed her return for the im ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unt of ₹ 14 lacs have been spent on 13.9.2013,23.1.2014 and 18.10.2013. It is clear from the sanctioned building plan that the construction was not at all started before 29.8.2013. 2 .In the copy of property receipt furnished, it has been noticed that the assessee has stated to have paid ₹ 632/- for the property tax for the period 2014-15 and it is not reasonable that for the building measuring 3398 Sq.ft, only an amount of ₹ 632/- is determined as property tax . 4. Ld. Assessing Officer thereafter deputed his Inspector for an enquiry. The enquiry report ran as under:- During the course of Inspection on 23.02.2015, the undersigned has met one Mr. Ramamoorthy, Manager, Suriyadevi Complex, who has located and ide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it was not in habitable condition. A building, in order to be habitable, is ordinarily required to have minimum facilities like a washroom, kitchen. living room, electricity, sewerage etc. One could not put up sheds for use without basic living amenities and claim that the structure constructed is a house . Therefore, one small room measuring 70 to 80 sq.ft. existed in the land could not be considered as house. The pictures shown above are the clear indicators to arrive at a conclusion that the assessee has not constructed any building within the time limit specified in the section . He thus denied the deduction claimed by the assessee u/s.54F of the Act and completed the assessment. 5. Aggrieved, assessee moved in appeal before ld ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsider the fresh claim of the assessee and held as under:- The appellant fresh claim in terms of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 is not maintainable on the ground that appellant was not prevented by sufficient cause from producing the evidence which he was called upon to produce by the Assessing Officer. Therefore additional ground of appeal made by the appellant is dismissed . Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) also upheld the order of the ld. Assessing Officer, denying the claim of deduction made u/s.54F of the Act. 6. Now before us, ld. Authorised Representative strongly assailing the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) submitted that the question whether land sold was agricultural or not was ge ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 2(14) of the Act. In support of this assessee placed before ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) a number of records to substantiate such claim. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) declined to admit the claim made by the assessee, citing a reason that Rule 46A did not permit admission of additional evidence, due to assessee s failure to produce the evidence before the ld. Assessing Officer . However, a reading of the assessment order clearly show that assessee s representative had mentioned loss of documents provided by the client to him in the Chennai floods. Letter dated 29.12.2015, filed by the ld. Authorised Representative before ld. Assessing Officer which is relevant and it is reproduced hereunder:- We are in receipt o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
