9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 773X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 24.08.2009, which was returned unserved with a remark "door locked". Hence, the Inspector was directed to serve the notice on the assessee. The Inspector visited on 30.09.2010, found that the door of the assessee was locked and therefore the notice was served by affixture after obtaining the signature of the two witnesses. In response to the notice, the AR of the assessee Mrs. M.R. Ramamani, FCA appeared before the Assessing Officer from time to time and submitted all the details as called for. After examining the details filed by the assessee and considering the submissions of the assessee, the Assessing Officer has completed the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act on 27.12.2011 assessing total income of the assessee at Rs..54,84,269/- after making various disallowances. 3. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and challenged the additions made by the Assessing Officer. After considering the submissions of the assessee as well as considering the facts of the case, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 4. On being agg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... "9. I have gone through the findings of the assessing officer and the submissions made by the appellant as well. From the perusal of the facts mentioned in the assessment order, it is noticed that there has been sincere efforts on the part of the Income Tax Officials to get the notice severed on the appellant in the normal course. However, when the same was not possible, the notice was served through affixture which is one of the modes of service of notice as defined in the provisions of CPC. Reading of the provisions of Order 5, Rules 9, 12 and 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 makes it amply clear that ordinarily the service has to be effected on the persons concerned personally, however, where the authority concerned is satisfied that there is reason to believe that the for any reasons the summons cannot be served in the ordinary way, the authority can order that the summons be served by affixing a copy thereof in some conspicuous part of the house (if any) in which the person who is to be served is known to have last resided or carried out business. In the present case, the AO has resorted to Affixture of notice only after satisfying himself of the situation which would ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cash. As per the MOU, Smt. Tamilselvi was to identify the parties for buying the assessee's house. The MOU was valid for 6 months only. However, as Mrs.Tamilselvi failed to identify buyers for the property, the assessee returned the advance on the expiry of six months. Meanwhile, the assessee searched for a new house property and entered into agreement to buy the same. When the above MOU expired and there were no immediate buyers for the old property, she purchased the new house property (flat) by availing a loan from the lDBI Bank. Subsequently, in the financial year 2008-09, the assessee sold the old house property and out of the sale proceeds thereof, an amount of Rs..35,54,495/-was utilised for clearing the loan taken from lDBI for purchasing the new house property. Thus, the assessee claimed that since the proceeds of the old house were utilised for clearing the lDBI loan availed for purchasing the new house property, the said utilisation of money for clearing the loan, was eligible for deduction under section 54 of the Act while computing the Long Term Capital Gains. 7.3 After considering the above submissions of the assessee and examining the details furnished by the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rty, constructed a new house. In the instant case, the appellant has sold the older residential house on 26.09.2008. Therefore, the deduction under section 54 is available on the investment made in a new residential house, if: a) Such new house is purchased or constructed within one year prior to the date of sale of the old house i.e between 26/09/2007 and 25/09/2008, or b) Such new house is purchased within two years from the date of sale of the old house, i.e. between 27/09/2008 and 26/09/2010, or c) Such new house is constructed within three years from the date of sale of the old house, i.e. between 27/09/2008 and 26/09/2011. 15. Whereas, in the present case, the appellant's claim is regarding the new house purchased prior to the date of sale of the old house. As per the details filed by the appellant, she had entered into an agreement with the builder on 18/11/2004. Even the land (UDS) relating to the said flat (new property) was registered on 18/05/2005. Further, even the possession of the new property was received by the appellant in October 2006. All the dates are far before the stipulated period of one year prior to the date of sale of the old property on 26/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
