9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (6) TMI 399X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Act. Grounds raised by the Revenue in that behalf read as follows- "1. The learned CIT(A) erred both on facts and in law. 2. The CIT(A) erred in directing to adopt the sale consideration at Rs.71,00,000 against Rs.1,01,00,000 adopted by the Assessing Officer in respect of sale of land on which the liability of capital gains tax arose. 3. The CIT(A) erred in directing to allow exemption u/s. 54F even though the construction of the new asset was prior to the date of sale of capital asset. 4. ...." 3. On the penultimate date of hearing, viz. on 6.2.2014, hearing on this appeal was adjourned to l20-.5.2014, duly informing the adjourned date to both the parties in the open court. Still, none appeared on behalf of the assesseerespondent. N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e said statement of Sudhakar Rao corroborated with the version of the assessee to some extent, the Assessing Officer was not convinced with the same. He observed that the version of the assessee was not supported by any material evidence and no prudent buyer would pay such a huge amount to a third party without any legally binding documents with the land owner. The Assessing Officer also referred to the contradiction between the assessee's submission that the deal with Shankar Reddy had not materialized and the statement of Sudhakar Rao that the amount of Rs.35 lakhs was paid directly to Shankar Reddy. The Assessing Officer also relied on the fact corroborated by i G.Sudhakar Rao that the assessee had purchased a flat in G.S. Heights, S.R. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h regard to receipt of the extra amount of Rs.31 lakhs, which stood corroborated by the statement of the purchaser, G.Sudhakar Rao, who, in reply to question No.4 put to him, during the course of statement recorded on 15.10.2009, categorically stated that the consideration paid to the assessee for the purchase of the property in question was only Rs.71,00,000. In support of this statement, it is evident from the impugned orders of the Revenue authorities that the said Shri G.Sudhakar Rao has also submitted details of the payments made on various dates and also copies of the relevant extracts of bank statements. It is in view of this categorical statement of the purchaser, also supported by the entries in the books of account, the CIT(A) dir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... decisions of the Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT V/s. H.K.Kapoor (150 CTR 128) and of the Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT V/s. J.R. Subrahmanya Bhat (165 ITR 571), relied upon by the assessee. 10. On appeal, the CIT(A), referring to the provisions of S.54F of the Act, observed that it refers only to the date of completion of the construction, and the date on which construction should begin is not specified. Finding the facts of the case on hand are similar to those involved in the case of J.R.Subrahmanya Bhat (supra), the CIT(A) held that the assessee is eligible for deduction under S.54F of the Act, since construction was completed within period prescribed by statute. 11. Aggrieved, Revenue is in appeal on this aspect. 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
