Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2017 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (11) TMI 1948 - AT - Income TaxDeduction u/s.54 in respect of construction of a residential house - claim denied on the ground that the construction has not been completed till the date of assessment - action of the Ld. CIT(A) in holding that the Cost Inflation Index is to be applied from 01.04.1981 - HELD THAT:- The property was originally owned by the assessee’s grand-mother and in view of the provisions of Explanation-1(i)(b) to Sec.2(42A) has held that in determining the period for which any asset is held by assessee under a gift, the period for which the asset was held by the previous owner has to be included. The Revenue has not been able to dislodge the findings nor has any other decision on this issue been placed before us. This being so, as it is noticed that the Ld. CIT(A) has followed the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Manjula J. Shah [2011 (10) TMI 406 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] we find no reason to interfere in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue. Construction of the residential house - A perusal of the capital gains account in the assessee’s case with SBI shows that the first entry is of 27.07.2012 wherein there was a deposit of ₹ 25,000/- and then there are various other deposits. On 15.03.2013, there is a withdrawal of ₹ 90,12,733/- and subsequently another withdrawal of ₹ 5,01,500/- on 21.04.2014. A perusal of the order of the Ld.CIT(A) at Para No. 12 talks of deposits in Capital Gains Scheme Account of ₹ 95,30,000/-. However, the bank account mentioned in the said paragraphs completely varies. Further, as per the Paper Book, the capital gains account with SBI is shown as 32449616206. How the Ld.CIT(A) has treated the other bank accounts as capital gains account is unknown? The said capital gains account has shown in the Paper Book shows total deposit of nearly ₹ 96,21,714/-. How the Ld. CIT(A) has arrived at the figure of ₹ 95,30,000/- is also not coming out of any evidences? The Ld.AR has not been able to place before us any evidence to show that the residential house had been constructed. The Ld.AR was unable to explain, if the Completion Certificate was received on April 16, 2015, why the same had not been produced before the Ld. CIT (A)? However, no reply was given. Further, a perusal of the capital gains account, only two withdrawals one is ₹ 90,12,733/- and another is ₹ 5,01,500/-. How this amount was withdrawn, on the basis of what invoice is also not produced before us. This being so, as the assessee has not been able to produce any evidence to substantiate the construction of the residential house, the order of the Ld. CIT (A) on this issue is reversed and that of the AO restored. CIT (A) granting the relief to the assessee u/s. 80E - submission that the Ld. CIT (A) has entertained the fresh evidence in the form of the letter issued from SBI regarding the deposit of sum towards the educational loan account of Shri Guarav Syal and Shri Rajan Syal and the said evidence was not produced before the AO - HELD THAT:- As the said evidence has not been produced before the AO for examination, in the interest of natural justice, the issue in respect of the deduction u/s.80E is restored to the file of the AO for re-adjudication after granting adequate opportunity to the assessee of being heard.
|