TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 595X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... towards purchase of construction material. All these evidences go to prove that the expenditure was incurred by the assessee within the stipulated period as provided under section 54F of the Income-tax Act. Further, the Assessing Officer has not disputed the fact that the house was finally constructed by the assessee by incurring the cost of construction. There may be a dispute of correct cost of construction but it cannot be denied that the assessee has not constructed the residen- tial house after sale of the existing asset. Thus the rejection of the claim of the assessee without conducting any enquiry to verify the fact about the actual cost of construction as well as the time period of the construction of the house is not warranted and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in confirming the taxation of long- term capital gain (LTCG) at ₹ 5,02,398 as against the same declared at nil by the assessee. The addition in the long-term capital gain so made and confirmed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) being contrary to the provisions of law and facts of the case, the same kindly be deleted in full. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in confirming the partial denial of the deduction claimed by the assessee under section 54F of the Act on account of investment made by the assessee in the construction of new ho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... denying the deduction under section 54F of the Income-tax Act on account of investment made by the assessee in construc- tion of new house. 3. The assessee is an Individual and drawing salary from M/s. Grasim Industries Ltd. The assessee filed his return of income on March 18, 2008 declaring a total income of ₹ 1,74,910. The Assessing Officer reopened the assessment by issuing notice under section 148 on March 29, 2012 on the ground that as per the information received from the Joint Commis- sioner of Income-tax (CIB) Jaipur the assessee sold an immovable property at ₹ 10,00,000 on February 12, 2007 and the stamp duty valued for registration was taken at ₹ 13,22,629. The Assessing Officer after allowing the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from the bank account of the assessee which shows that the entire material was purchased within the time period specified under section 54F of the Income-tax Act and hence the assessee has made the investment in the construction of new house within the period of limitation. Thus the learned counsel has contended that when the assessee had invested more than the sale consideration in construction of new house, then the deduction under section 54 cannot be denied merely because the construction was not completed in all respects. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the decision of the hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Pr. CIT v. C. Gopalaswamy [2016] 384 ITR 307 (Karn). He has further submitted that once the investme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gain by applying the provisions of section 50C of the Income-tax Act. The Assessing Officer has allowed the deduction under section 54 to the extent of ₹ 6,60,000 for which the assessee purchased the residential plot. However, the Assessing Officer has denied the claim of deduction to the extent of ₹ 9,19,435 towards the cost of construction of new house on the ground that the assessee has not produced any supporting evidence to show that the house was completed within the stipulated period provided under section 54F. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer on the similar reasoning that the assessee has even not filed the valuation report of completed house. Though the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
