Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2013 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (6) TMI 350 - AT - Income TaxDeduction claimed u/s. 54 denied - AO concluded that what was constructed by the assessee was not a residential house as envisaged in sec. 54 & as the assessee did not come forward with any evidence to prove the existence of the house with a built up area of 600 sq. ft., assessee had accepted his conclusion that the house transferred through the sale deed was not in existence at all as on date - Held that:- The assessee taken a plea before the lower authorities that this construction was used by servants as their residence. However, the Assessing Officer brought on record that the said construction was not fit for human habitation and also there is no evidence of carrying out any improvement after purchasing the property by the assessee. It is also brought on record that the assessee failed to substantiate the claim that some servants are staying in that construction. Before us, the assessee repeated the arguments as made before the lower authorities but has not placed necessary evidence in support of the claim of whatsoever to show that the said construction is in habitable condition. A construction in inhabitable position cannot be equated with a residential house. If a person cannot live in a premises, then such premises cannot be considered as a residential house. Thus investment in the construction would be complete as a house only when such house becomes habitable as supported by the decision of Saleem Fazelbhoy vs. DCIT (2006 (6) TMI 139 - ITAT BOMBAY-G). The evidence brought on record by the Assessing Officer clearly shows that the property purchased by the assessee would not fall within the description of residential house. Being so, the claim of the assessee cannot be allowed u/s. 54F. Also see Smt. Rohini Reddy [2008 (4) TMI 363 - ITAT HYDERABAD-B]. Against assessee. Claim for construction expenditure denied - Held that:- The assessee not placed before the Assessing Officer the required information like the details from whom the assessee purchased construction material. Further it is also brought on record by the Assessing Officer that the contractors to whom payments were made withdrew the amount from their accounts in a short time and closed the accounts within a few months. The evidence brought on record by the Assessing Officer shows that the alleged improvements or construction made by the assessee is false. Being so, we are inclined to uphold the argument of the DR and dismiss the ground taken by the assessee.Against assessee. Addition u/s. 68 - Held that:- The assessee only provided address of parties. Genuineness of the transaction and capacity of the parties are not proved. It is the burden cast on the assessee u/s. 68 to prove the genuineness of the transaction and capacity of the parties is not discharged by the assessee. The transaction is in the form of cash. Being so, there is heavy burden on the assessee to prove that the transaction is genuine. See R.B. Mittal vs. CIT (2000 (8) TMI 54 - ANDHRA PRADESH High Court) wherein similar view has been taken, thus inclined to confirm the addition made u/s. 68. Against assessee.
|