9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 302X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the appellant had sold residential building measuring 1400 sq.ft. with the land appurtenant thereto as well as the balance portion of land measuring 21 cents and hence eligible for claiming exemption both u/s.5.4 on sale of residential building and u/s.54F on sale of balance land though both residential building and the land were sold together. 2.4 For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not granting exemption u/s.54 in respect of the first floor of the property without appreciating that the appellant had constructed the first floor even before the property was registered in her name. 2.5 For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in concluding that if at all there had been construction on the first floor the value of the same would have been shown the registered document without appreciating the fact that, the appellant had purchased only the ground floor of the building through the registered document and the first floor of the property was constructed by the appellant. 2.6 For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in concluding that the appellant had not filed any plan approval for the said construction without appreciating th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ial villa measuring 1500 sq.ft. on four cents of land from Sri K. Achuthan, and total payments including the stamp registration charges and additional works on a villa was worked out to Rs. 49,60,000/-. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has claimed exemption u/s. 54 of the Act on Rs. 68,20,000/- and also exemption u/s. 54F of the Act on Rs. 49,60,000/-. The assessee explained that she has sold along with her mother old tiled residential house of 1240 sq.ft. and land, therefore, the land has to be considered separately. The assessee has purchased the residential property and incurred additional expenditure of Rs. 24,10,000/- on the first floor. The Assessing Officer on perusal of the records found that the first floor construction does not find place in the sale deed and called for the approval plan of the works. The Ld. AR contention that with the permission of the seller of property the assessee has constructed first floor, the Ld AO find that the assessee could not substantiate with any evidence of approval of first floor and rejected the claim of exemption u/s. 54 of the Act to the extent of Rs. 24,10,000/- towards additional construction cost. And in respect of c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ption u/s. 54F of the Act Rs. 40,46,115/-. On cost of construction of residential villa and the CIT(A) has confirmed the action and not considered the basic facts that the assessee along with mother sold property including land apparent thereto. Whereas, the assessee has bifurcated the Building and Land and claimed exemption u/s. 54 of the Act on Building Area and exemption u/s. 54F of the Act on Land Area. The Ld. AR submitted that the first floor of the building was constructed prior to the Registration of the sale deed in favour of the assessee, in respect of ground floor area and therefore, the addition of construction area of first floor area does not appear in the sale deed. The Ld. CIT(A) has failed to considered the valuation report submitted by the assessee for the construction of first floor but confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer. The Ld. AR prayed for allowing the exemption u/s. 54 and 54F of the Act and supported with the case laws and filed paper book with evidences and Bank Account Statements and translation copy of sale deeds and prayed for admitting the additional evidence filed and allow the appeal. 6. We heard the rival submissions, perused the materia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Smt. K. G. Rukminiamma [2011] 331 ITR 211 (Kar) 4. CIT v Gita Duggal [2013] 257 CTR (Delhi) 208 5. CIT v Syed Alo Adi [2012] 83 CCH 240 (AP) 6. CIT v V.R. Karpagam in Tax Case Appeal N.301 of 2017 - Madras HC 7. ITO v Mrs. P.A. Sarala [2015] 58 taxmann.com 290 (Chennai- Trib) The Ld. AR also filed the English translation copies of sale deed executed filed in paper book. On the other hand, the Ld. DR submitted that the property sold cannot be divided as Building and land apparent thereto as only one sale deed executed by the assessee and her mother. The assessee has made claim of exemption u/s. 54 and 54F of the Act which was considered but the Assessing Officer has denied exemption u/s. 54F of the Act. The Ld. AR filed the chart with sequences of events on the purchase of villa and claimed exemption u/s. 54F of the Act and supporting with the bank statement filed as additional evidence. Similarly, the assessee has purchased the property on 01.07.2011 and incurred the construction cost on first floor of Rs. 24,10,000/- which was rejected by the Assessing Officer. The Ld. AR further emphasized that the assessee has produced a copy of valuation report before the Assessing Off ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
