TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 1999X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y:Shri P.P. Meena, JCIT - DR ORDER Bhagchand, The assessee has filed an appeal against the order of the ld. CIT(A) Ajmer dated 04-11-2015 for the Assessment Year 2009-10 raising amended grounds of appeal as under:- 1 The ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in confirming the allowance of the deduction claimed u/s 54F upto ₹ 17,18,127/- only as against the deduction claimed by the appellant of ₹ 46,93,353/- and thus thereby confirming the denial of deduction of ₹ 29,13,226/-. The confirmation of the part denial of the deduction made by the AO, being contrary to the provisions of law and facts, the rest amount of deduction also kindly be allowed. 2. The ld. CIT(A) further erre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in Plot No. 4 (₹ 7,04,000/-) and construction expenses incurred for the house built in Plot No. 4 (₹ 12,22,000/-). The AO did not allow any deduction in respect of investment made in purchase of Plot No. 1,2, and 3. I have gone through the provisions of Sec 54F carefully. The deduction u/s 54F(1) is admissible in respect of a residential house constructed within the specified period. From the assessment order itself, it is clear that the assessee has constructed the house only on Plot No.4. No construction has been made on Plot No. 1,2 and 3. The contention of the appellant that all the four plots constitute a single unit is not acceptable because the assessee himself has not utilized these plots for construction of any commo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case are that the assessee had purchased four adjoining residential plots bearing different numbers (Nos. 1,2,3 and 4) spending different amount separately ₹ 10,64,000/- ₹ 10,50,000/- ₹ 10,38,000/- and ₹ 7,04,000/-respectively vide different deeds (S.N. 136, 135, 137 and 134 respectively) which are registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Ajmer-1 on 19-05-2008 from the one seller and constructed a house in Plot No. 4 covering all the four plots by a boundary wall. The contention of the assessee is that he has not purchased more than one residential units but has purchased four pieces of land of same khasra No. 923 from one seller. It is noted that all the plots are appurtenant to each other and are in continuation. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee. The AO thus noted that the total area of 1459.08 sq. yards of other three plots cannot be considered to be a part of land appurtenant to the small building constructed in Plot No. 4 which has been constructed only on 18% part of its plot itself. The AO further noted that assessee has covered all the four plots by a common boundary wall having one common gate but it does not seem to be the expediency of the ground position and ground reality and the same is done by the assessee to protect his land only. The AO himself visited the site on 3-07-2014 and clicked a few pictures of the site which are available at page 12 of the assessment order. The AO looking into the above facts and circumstances of the case did not allow deduction claimed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deration = 19,26,000 *1,75,37,856 = ₹ 17,80,127/- 1,89,75,000 The deduction allowed earlier u/s 54F was ₹ 46,93,353/-. So the difference amount of ₹ 29,13,226/- (4693353 1718127)will be disallowed and added back to the earlier assessed income of the assessee. Computation of total Income Assessed income u/s 143(3) ₹ 1,33,23,278/- Add: Disallowance u/s 54F ₹ 29,13,226/- Assessed income ₹ 1,62,36,504/- Assessed at income ₹ 1,62,36,504/-. Calculation of tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
