Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2022 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (9) TMI 1246 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance of deduction u/s 54F - acquisition of new asset was not supported by registered deed of purchase - CIT-A deleted the addition - whether or not the CIT(A) was right in law and the facts of the case in allowing the assesse’s claim of having purchased a new residential house on the basis of an unregistered purchase agreement and consequently accepting his claim for deduction u/s.54F ? - HELD THAT:- As the assessee before us had vide an unregistered purchase agreement, dated 30.03.2015 purchased a residential house and, had made not only made the payment of the entire amount of purchase consideration to the seller amounting to Rs.2.91 Crore (approx.) out of his bank account with IDBI Bank, Branch : Raipur on 31.03.2015 (after deducting TDS ) and had taken the possession of the property, therefore, it can safely be concluded that he had duly satisfied the requirement of having “purchased” a residential house within the stipulated time period contemplated in Section 54(1) - We, thus, in terms of our aforesaid observations concur with the view taken by the CIT(Appeals), who in our considered view had rightly vacated the disallowance of the assessee’s claim for deduction u/s.54F uphold his order to the said extent. Thus, the Grounds of appeal No.(s) 1 to 3 raised by the revenue are dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations. Whether CIT(Appeals) was right in allowing the assessee’s claim of indexed cost of improvement, despite the fact that the same was not substantiated on the basis of supporting documentary evidence by the assessee before the lower authorities? - We finding no infirmity in the same are inclined to subscribe to the same. CIT(Appeals) in the backdrop of the ground realties i.e the purchase of sand, cement and incurring of labour expenses form part of an unorganized sector, had thus rightly observed that the fact that the assessee could not have obtained the purchase bills/receipts qua the incurring of the expenses could not be ruled out. As rightly observed by him that a conjoint perusal of the facts attending to the case of the assessee, viz. (i) that the assessee had vide a registered sale deed sold a double storied house; and (ii) that now when the assessee had placed on record the purchase bills of iron and steel, therefore, the fact of having incurred expenses towards purchase of other building material, viz. sand, cement and incurring of labour expenses could not be ruled out as otherwise the coming into existence of the double storeyed house would not have been possible. Accordingly, finding no infirmity in the view taken by the CIT(Appeals) who had rightly allowed the assessee’s claim for deduction of indexed cost of improvement, we, thus, uphold his order to the said extent. Thus, the Ground of appeal No.4 raised by the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations.
|