Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2020 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (4) TMI 781 - AT - Income TaxDeduction u/s 54F - Denial of deduction as on the date of sale of the ‘Original‘ asset the assessee owned more than one residential property viz. (i) residential house at Lonawala : and (ii) residential house at Kamothe - HELD THAT:- As the assessee had been shown beyond doubt to be the owner of the residential house/Bungalow situated at Lonawala, therefore, irrespective of the fact that the said property was not occupied by him due to its poor quality of construction, the same continued to be a residential house which was owned by the assessee. On the basis of our aforesaid observations, now when it stands proved that as on the date of transfer of the ‘Original‘ asset i.e land on 01.03.2013, the assessee in addition to the residential house at Kamothe also owned a Bungalow at Lonawala, therefore, being an owner of more than one residential house on the said relevant date, he was ineligible to claim deduction under Sec. 54F. As regards the claim of the ld. A.R that the fact that the A.O while framing the assessment under Sec. 143(3) for the year under consideration had not assessed the ‘Annual Lettable Value‘ (ALV) of the aforesaid Bungalow at Lonawala under Sec. 23 of the Act, therein proved that the assessee was not the owner of the said residential property during the year under consideration, we are afraid does not find favour with us - the documents forming part of the APB clearly reveals beyond any scope of doubt that the assessee during the year under consideration was the owner of the residential house/Bungalow at Lonawala. Accordingly, finding no infirmity in the view taken by the CIT(A), who in our considered view had rightly affirmed the declining of the assesses claim for deduction under Sec. 54F by the A.O, we uphold the same. Levy of interest under Sec. 234A and 234B - HELD THAT:- As the levy of interest under the aforesaid statutory provisions is mandatory as per the judgment of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala [2001 (10) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT] therefore, finding no infirmity in charging of the aforesaid interest by the A.O, we uphold the same.
|