TMI Blog2011 (11) TMI 667X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat an information was gathered from which it was noticed that the assessee has sold the land to M/s. Vatika Ltd. on 12-10-2006 for a sale consideration of ₹ 1,61,09,100/-. On the basis of this information, the AO issued notice u/s 142(1) on 16-08-2007 and as per the notice, the assessee was required to file the return of income by 20-09-2007. No compliance was made to the five notices issued and the details are available at page 1 of the assessment order. For making assessment, the AO vide notice dated 30-11-2009 required the assessee to furnish certain details but no compliance was made to this notice. The AO in order to provide adequate opportunity to the assessee issued a letter in Hindi so that the assessee may know about the pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and / construction of house from the bank account of the assessee or son of the assessee. 2.5 We have heard both the parties. The AO has issued 06 notices u/s 142(1) and also issued a notice in Hindi. The assessee has opened the bank account and has also made the transaction with M/s. Vatika Ltd. Hence, it cannot be accepted that the assessee could not have understood the implication of the notices being issued. The AO has to pass the order u/s 144 of the Act on the basis of material gathered. It is nowhere mentioned that the AO should collect material on the issues on which the assessee has to provide the evidence. From the bank account, the AO could not have inferred the purchase of the agricultural land and construction of the house. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llage was administered by the Panchayat wherefrom village Balmukandpura was more than 8 km. The findings of the AO and the ld. CIT(A) are not based on any authentic certificate regarding municipal limit and merger of village in Municipalities as per Rajasthan Municipal Corporation Act, 1959. 3.5 On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the orders of the authorities below. 3.6 We have heard both the parties. While deciding the appeal in the case of Shri Sardar Ram Meena Vs. ITO (ITA No. 1233/ JP/2011 dated 30-09-2011), we have decided that Urban Improvement Trust cannot be considered as included in Section 2(14) because Urban Development Authority is not constituted by the elected representatives. The word mentioned is Municipality. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 54 or 54F will not be available in case the investment in the residential house is not made in the name of the assessee. The assessee had no domain or right whatsoever in the property purchased and therefore, exemption will not be available. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Vipin Malik (HUF) Vs. CIT, 330 ITR 309 has held that residential house which was purchased or constructed had to be of the same assessee whose agricultural land was sold. In the case before Hon'ble Delhi High Court, the residential house was in the individual name of the assessee and his mother while the land belonged to HUF. The deduction u/s 54F was not allowed in the case of Jai Narain Vs. ITO, 306 ITR 335 in which it was held that term assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of ₹ 41,07,779/- without confronting the additional evidence to the AO for his consideration and rebuttal. 5.2 Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee claimed deduction for a sum of ₹ 41,07,779/-. The assessee filed the valuation report from the approved valuer. On this basis, the ld. CIT(A) directed the AO to allow deduction u/s 54F of the Act. 5.3 We have heard both the parties. The AO in his report to the ld. CIT(A) mentioned that the assessee has not filed necessary evidence in respect of claim of deduction u/s 54F. The valuation report is dated 9th Dec. 2010. In this valuation report, it is mentioned that the construction has been done between 1-1-206 to 31-03-07 and thereafter from 01- 04-07 to 31-03-08. The date of val ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
