TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 661X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... residential house. Merely because the sale deed had not been executed or that construction is not complete and it is not in a fit condition to be occupied does not disentitle the assessee to claim s. 54F relief. As in SAMBANDAM UDAYKUMAR [ 2012 (3) TMI 80 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] followed similar decision rendered by the Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of Sardarmal Kothari [ 2008 (6) TMI 15 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] . We are therefore of the view that even on the basis of non-completion of construction of the new asset within the period of 3 years, the deduction u/s.54 of the Act cannot be denied to the Assessee. In the present case, we are satisfied on the basis of evidence produced by the assessee that a building had come up over ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... house, the income of which is chargeable under the head Income from house property (referred to in Sec.54 of the Act as the original asset), and the assessee has (i) within a period of one year before, or (ii) two years after the date on which the transfer took place (a) purchased, or (b) has within a period of three years after that date constructed, a residential house, then, capital gain will be allowed as deduction to the extent of Long-Term Capital Gains OR to the extent of amount invested in the purchase or construction of the new residential house. whichever is less. 3. The undisputed facts are that the assessee was a co-owner of residential house. By a Sale Deed dated 30.10.2009, the aforesaid property was sold ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, the Assessee ought to have completed the construction within a period of 3 years from the date of transfer of the original asset, i.e., on or before 29.10.2012. 5. The AO, however, recomputed the income from Long Term Capital Gains at ₹ 25,59,560/- by varying the assessee share of consideration to ₹ 48,00,000/- as against ₹ 40,00,000/- reported by the assessee. Thus, the AO computed the long term capital gains before deduction u/s.54 of the Act at ₹ 25,59,560/- as against the sum of ₹ 17,59,560/- reported by the assessee. 6. The AO thereafter noticed that the assessee had purchased a residential property for ₹ 39,41,120/- and compared this figure with the capital gains of ₹ 25,59,560/- arr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ograph does not reveal the date on which it was taken. The photograph does no reveal the exact location of the place as Plot no.704 can be written anywhere and photograph of the same can be taken by standing beside that. The structure shown in the photograph appears to be just a temporary storage shed which is normally made for the storage of construction material before starting construction. Thus the photograph does not reveal that the structure made on the property can be considered as a residential house. The appellant has not given any occupation certificate if any residential house was constructed by him. 4.12 Thus the details produced by the appellant do not show that an residential house was constructed on the plot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or before 29.10.2012. The evidence on record goes to show that there was a structure that had come up over the property. The sanctioned plan, usage of electricity, payment of property tax, usage of electricity for the period from Sept. 2012 to Feb. 2013, all go to show that the property existed over the site purchased by the assessee. All these evidence go to show that assessee had put up structure over the site purchased by him. The CIT(A) has come to a conclusion that the Assessee did not construct a residential house within a period of 3 years from the date of transfer of the original asset, on the basis that the photograph filed as evidence does not reveal that the construction of the house was on the plot of land purchased by the As ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nvestments in the acquisition of a residential house and completion of construction or occupation is not the requirement of law . The words used in the section are purchased or constructed . The condition precedent for claiming benefit u/s 54F is that the capital gain should be parted by the assessee and invested either in purchasing a residential house or in constructing a residential house. Merely because the sale deed had not been executed or that construction is not complete and it is not in a fit condition to be occupied does not disentitle the assessee to claim s. 54F relief. The Hon ble Karnataka High Court followed similar decision rendered by the Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of Sardarmal Kothari 302 ITR 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
