TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 492X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is a common practice - HELD THAT:- We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant materials available on record. As regards commission paid, the assessee has not given any documentary evidence as regards to the payment made to the so-called agent. The evidence was not before the Assessing Officer as well as before the CIT(A). Therefore, in absence of any evidence, the CIT(A) has rightly confirmed this addition on account of commission expenses. Ground No.3 is dismissed. Disallowance of exemption u/s 54 - HELD THAT:- We have heard both the parties and perused all the materials available on records. From the perusal of records, it can be seen that the assessee submitted certain documents before the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) in respect of claiming benefit of exemption u/s 54F of the Act. The fact remains that the assessee sold property situated at Okhla and purchased a flat at Gurugaon. Whether the transaction of purchase is from borrowed fund or through own funds has not been properly verified by the AO or the CIT(A) before rejecting the assessee s said claim u/s 54F. Therefore, it will be appropriate to remand back this issue to the file of the AO to decide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 23,510/- being the investment made in the residential property. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any of the grounds of appeal. 3. The assessee is an individual deriving income under the head income from business , income from capital gains and income from other sources . The assessee filed return of income for A.Y. 2012-13 on 31.03.2014 declaring an income of ₹ 42,31,790/-. Thereafter, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax Act was issued to the assessee. During the year under consideration, the assessee sold a property situated at Okhla Industrial Area for a consideration of ₹ 2.7 crore and earned capital gains of ₹ 1,29,95,449/-. Out of the sale proceeds, the assessee brought a flat in Noida on 16.07.2012 for a total consideration of ₹ 50,00,000/- and a flat in Gurgaon or 12.11.2012 for a total consideration of ₹ 2,13,23,510/-. The Assessee claimed deduction u/s 54F of the Act for both the properties and tax was paid on the remaining amount of ₹ 35,54,080/-. Further, with the cost of acquisition of the property situated in Okhla Industrial Area, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aluation report from a registered valuer so as to justify the construction cost as claimed by the assessee. The Ld. AR submitted that a copy of valuation report as an additional evidence prepared by the accrued valuers clearly states that the total value was computed to ₹ 62,05,000/-. After considering the valuation report, the CIT(A) asked for the comments from the Assessing Officer on the report. However, the Assessing Officer chose not to say anything on the merit of the valuation report. However, the CIT(A) also disregarded the submissions of the assessee and accepted 75% of the value as determined by the registered valuer, i.e., ₹ 46,53,750/- and rejected the cost of construction as claimed by the assessee. There is no dispute in the fact that the assessee got construction done on the plot situated in Okhla Industrial Area. The same is evident from the sale deed. Therefore, the Ld. AR submitted that for completing the above construction certain cost was incurred which rightly claimed by the assessee while calculating capital gain. The Ld. AR further submitted that the registered valuer worked out the construction cost of ₹ 62,05,000/- for the approved/permiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d and the same is a common practice. The Ld. AR submitted that the range of commission in such type of business varies from 1% to 2%, therefore, the payment of commission in the case in hand is very reasonable commission amounting only to 0.1590% and therefore claim of the assessee cannot be denied. 9. The Ld. DR relied upon the assessment order as well as the order of the CIT(A). 10. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant materials available on record. As regards commission paid, the assessee has not given any documentary evidence as regards to the payment made to the so-called agent. The evidence was not before the Assessing Officer as well as before the CIT(A). Therefore, in absence of any evidence, the CIT(A) has rightly confirmed this addition on account of commission expenses. Ground No.3 is dismissed. 11. As regards Ground No.4, in respect of disallowance of exemption u/s 54 of the Act to the extent of ₹ 2,13,23,510/-. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee sold Industrial property situated at Okhla for ₹ 2.7 Crores. However, to claim the benefit of exemption u/s 54F of the Act the assessee purchased a flat at Gurgaon for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
