TMI Blog2020 (4) TMI 360X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... planning permission on 29.03.2016 with the condition that the appellant should start the construction within 6 months ie before on or before 29.09.2016, by the time the appellant was about to start the construction, the Hon 'ble Madras High Court had given a Judgment restricting the registration of plots at unauthorized layouts or any flats/building constructed at such plots in Writ Petition number 19566 of 2015 dated 09.09.2016. This means that any plots which are not approved by CMDA shall not be permitted for registration or for any other activity like construction after 09.09.2016. Hence the appellant could not start the construction and was waiting for the final outcome of the Judgment. Ultimately, when the legal and procedural ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0/- and claimed deduction u/s. 54. The A O noticed that as per the provisions of the Act, in the vacant land of the original asset, the assessee was supposed to construct a residential house within 3 years from the date of transfer. However, from the details obtained during the course of assessment proceedings etc , he found that the impugned land was lying as vacant land as on 13.10.2017, the vacant land is not assessed to the property tax and it does not have an Electricity connection and hence, he disallowed the assessee s claim of deduction u/s. 54 and assessed the assessee s income under the head long term capital gains. 3. Aggrieved , the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A). Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee submitted , ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 09.2016 Order of Hon'ble Madras High Court Passed a Judgement restricting the registration of Court unauthorized layouts or flats or Buildings (WP No. 19566/2015) 22.09.2016 Notice Issued u/s 143(2) 22.05.2017 Notice Issued u/s 142(1) 13.10.2017 Notification of Tamilnadu Government Notification of TN government for regularization of plots and buildings. 29.11.2017 Letter issued by AO Show cause as to why ₹ 2,28,33,225/- being full value of consideration u/s 50C instead of ₹ 2,27,00,0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tart the construction within 6 months namely 29.09.2016. By the time the appellant was about to start the construction, the Hon 'ble Madras High Court had given a Judgment restricting the registration of plots at unauthorized layouts or any flats/building constructed at such plots in Writ Petition number 19566 of 2015 dated 09.09.2016. This means that any plots which are not approved by CMDA shall not be permitted for registration or for any other activity like construction. A copy of the planning permission and the said Judgment of the Hon 'ble Madras High Court is submitted before AO. Due to the above order of the High Court, the appellant was barred by Law from starting the house construction after 09.09.2016. Hence the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e AO. The appellant also submitted actual photographs taken at the site as on 21.12.2017 before AO. The appellant had also applied for the regularization of the building which was constructed after lapse of original building plan permission but eligible for regularization as per the Rules framed by the Government of Tamilnadu. 13. The appellant humbly state that the delay in completion of construction of house property was mainly due to the restriction imposed by Law and not intentional. The appellant have lost around 400 days between 09.09.2016 and 13.10.2017 due to the order of the Hon'ble Madras High Court. Hence appellant request A O to kindly treat the above situation beyond his control and allow his claim u/s 54 on the basis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... registration or for any other activity like construction after 09.09.2016. Hence the appellant could not start the construction and was waiting for the final outcome of the Judgment. Ultimately, when the legal and procedural environment became clear, the assessee constructed it after 13th Oct 2017. Therefore, we are of the view that the assessee is entitled to the benefits of deduction u/s 54, as the delay towards the impugned construction period is beyond his control and not attributable to him. Therefore, we direct the AO to treat as if construction is made within time . Since the A O has not examined the other conditions in relation to the grant of deduction u/s 54 , we remit the issue back to A O for a fresh examination . After affor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
