9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 595X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8/143(3) dated March 14, 2014 are bad in law and on facts of the case, for want of jurisdiction and various other reasons and hence the same kindly be deleted. 1.2. The very action taken under section 147 is bad in law without jurisdiction and being void ab initio, the same kindly be quashed. Consequently the impugned assessment framed under section 148/ 143(3) dated March 14, 2014 also kindly be quashed. 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 Rs. 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... resentative has raised no objection if ground Nos. 1.1 and 1.2 of the assessee's appeal are dismissed as not pressed. Accordingly, ground Nos. 1.1 and 1.2 of the assessee's appeal are dismissed being not pressed. Ground Nos. 2 and 3 are regarding addition made by the Assessing Officer of long-term capital gain by 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 Rs. 1,74,910. The Assessing Officer reopened the assessment by issuing notice under section 148 on March 29, 2012 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... coun- sel has thus submitted that the assessee has incurred total expenditure of more than Rs. 15,00,000 in construction of new house. He has referred to various bills towards the purchase of construction material and submitted that the payment has been made 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 constr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and during the year under consideration for a consideration of Rs. 10,00,000 though the said property was valued for the purpose of stamp duty at Rs. 13,22,629 which is relevant for the purpose of computing the capital 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 Rs. 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 Rs. 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
