9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 184X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T (A) ought to have accepted the explanation of the Assessee and refrained from confirming the disallowance of the claim of exemption u/s 54 of the Act. 3) The learned CIT (A) ought to have appreciated that no new residential property has been constructed cost was supported by an approval valuer report and consequently the existence of the new residential property could not be doubted and accordingly the learned CIT (A) ought to have held that the Assessee was eligible for the deduction u/s 54 of the Act. 4) The learned CIT (A) ought to have referred the Issue to the department valuer officer to ascertain the cost of the new construction in the principles of natural justice and decided the quotation of deduction u/s 54 of the Act. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thorities were only keen to collect the taxes and not providing any approval to the plan. However, the details of break-up of the cost was given. The AO, however, held that no part of cost of construction was liable to be allowed on account of the fact that the assessee did not produce any evidence by way of vouchers and documents to prove the construction. Even the valuation report submitted by the assessee from the approved value to support the cost of construction wherein the cost was determined by applying CPWD rates was not accepted. Consequently, the claim for deduction u/s. 54 of the Act was disallowed and a total income of Rs. 66,14,070/- was determined. 3. On the claim of deduction u/s. 54 of the Act, the CIT(Appeals) observed tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o valuation certificate had commenced in January 2013 and completed in December, 2013 and thereafter property was assessed to BBMP tax as per document produced by the assessee claiming it to be BBMP assessment. He was of the view that unless the property falls within the jurisdiction of BBMP, BBMP assessment would not have taken place and therefore assessee's contention that it was a revenue site and plan was not sanctioned was rejected. The CIT(A) finally held that in the absence of any evidence by the assessee that the original asset was a residential house, deduction u/s. 54 of the Act was admissible and upheld the order of AO. Against this, the assessee is in appeal before us. 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the material ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
