TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 480X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... umentary evidence to establish that business promotion expenses were utilised for personal purpose. Similarly regarding for disallowance out of vehicle running and maintenance expenses, the only basis adopted by the Assessing Officer, is status of the assessee and no other cogent material has been brought on record for disallowing the expenses. In our opinion, the finding of the Ld. CIT-(A) on the issue in dispute is well reasoned and no further interference is required in said finding.- Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 5254/Del/2014 - - - Dated:- 4-8-2017 - SH. H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Appellant : Sh. R.C. Dandaya, Sr.DR For The Respondent : S/sh. R.S. Singhvi Satyajeet Goel, CAs ORDER PER O.P. KANT, A.M.: This appeal by the Revenue is directed against order dated 31/07/2014 of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-XXIV, New Delhi [in short the CIT-(A) ] for assessment year 2011-12, raising following grounds: On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law CIT(A) has erred in- 1. Allowing the relief of ₹ 1,59,77,680/- u/s 54F of the I.T. Act. 2. Ignoring the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Capital Gain after indexed value Remarks 1 Commercial Shop No. GF-17, Sector-43, Gurgaon (Peach tree), ₹ 43,37,280/- ₹ 5,97,212 /- Claimed U/s 54F 2 Plot No. 403, Block A-1, Sushant Lok-I, Gurgaon Rs.1,00,00,000/- ₹ 73,13,294/- --do-- 3 Plot No. A-1/404, Sushant Lok-ll, Gurgaon Rs.1,10,44,000/- Rs.81,03,976/- --do-- 4 Plot No. 209, Sector-32, Ambala ₹ 7,00,000/- (Rs.39,802/-) --do-- 5 (A) A-201, Kirti Nagar Industrial Area, New Delhi Rs.1,17,27,200/- ₹ 81,50,632/- Tax paid on gain (B) Building on above ₹ 47,22,800/- ₹ 44,95,088/- Adjusted against block of assets of building 6. As regarding claim of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection and it has to be interpreted liberally, as held by various courts. 5.2 It is further observed that proviso of subsection (1) of Section 54F itself provides that sub section (1) of section 54F shall not apply where the assessee owns more than one residential house, other than the new asset on the date of transfer of the original asset. Even if it is accepted that the appellant was having one residential house at D-3/8, Vasant Vihar Delhi, the appellant was not owning another house other than the new asset i.e 9, Mehendi Farms, Bhati Mines, Chhatarpur, New Delhi on the date of transfer of the original assets (in this case, lands and shop, as discussed earlier). Therefore, It is clear that the appellant was not having more than one residential house (i.e. at vasant vihar) other than the new asset (i.e. at 9, Mehendi Farms, Bhati Mines, Chhatarpur, New Delhi) on the date of transfer of original asset. Therefore, in my humble opinion, the appellant is eligible for deduction as per the proviso of section 54F, of the income tax act, in respect of the long term capital gains earned during the relevant assessment year. 5.3 It is further observed that there is no bar in se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the section 54F of the Act for claiming deduction for second time or third time for the same property, if the cost of the property is within the capital gain arose to the assessee. 11. The Ld. Sr. DR contended that assessee has accepted the disallowance of ₹ 86,00,000/- under section 54F of the Act for assessment year 2010-11 and therefore the deduction in the year under consideration should also be disallowed. We are not convinced with this argument of the Ld. Senior DR as in what circumstances the deduction was withdrawn by the assessee in the preceding year, is not relevant for us. What is relevant is whether the assessee satisfies the conditions of section 54F of the Act in the year under consideration. Before us, the Ld. senior DR could not controvert findings of the Ld. CIT-(A). In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the assessee is entitled for deduction under section 54F of the Act because house property at 9, Mehandi Farms was under construction during the year under consideration and it cannot be said as another residential house owned by the assessee. As the assessee owned only one residential house at D-3/8 Vasant Vihar, N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
