TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 1754X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dispute. The fact that the purchase of the residential sites was at a cost of ₹ 1,18,94,408/- and the fact that an advance of ₹ 70,00,000/- was paid to a builder on 28.6.2008 are also not in dispute. Therefore, the assessee has actually purchased three residential sites within a year and had entrusted the work of construction to a builder. If the completion of construction had been delayed on account of the delay in the Airports Authority of India in giving clearance and the Town Planning Authority giving approval to the building plan, the benefit of section 54 cannot be denied to the assessee. After all, the object of section 54(1) is to ensure that if the sale proceedings are invested in a residential house, the assessee shoul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that the claim of exemption allowed under Section 54 was wrong. The Commissioner directed the assessing officer to redo the assessment afresh as per the law. 5. Therefore, notices was issued and after giving opportunity, the assessing officer passed an order dated 11.3.2013 holding that the assessee could not complete the construction of habitable residential house, within a period of three years, as required under section 54 so as to claim exemption. Consequently, the assessing officer disallowed the claim and computed the taxable income as ₹ 1,19,54,550/-. 6. As against the order of assessment, the assessee filed a statutory appeal in Appeal No.46/13-14. The first appellate authority dismissed the appeal by an order dated 10 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pproved the building plan on 19.4.2012, only after the issue of no objection certificate by the Airports Authority, since the plot was located near the Bangalore Airport. 8. In the facts and circumstances narrated above, the Tribunal took note of an order passed by a Coordinate Bench in the case of ACIT v SHRI.PRAKASH CHAND BORA (ITA 1490/Mds/2013) for the assessment year 2007-08. In the said case, the Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to deduction under section 54(2) to the extent of the amount paid on or before two years. 9. The Tribunal also took note of another decision of a Co-ordinate Bench in SMT.V.A.THARABAI v. DCIT ((2012) 19 Taxmann.com 276) and a decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in SMT.SHASHI VARMA v. CI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
