TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 58X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n individual capacity and the construction of the house was completed during the FY relevant to AY 2009-10 and interest on housing loan was claimed from the AY 2009-10 onwards in his individual income tax returns. In the written submissions filed by the assessee, it has been mentioned that the same addition in respect of same property had been assessed in AY 2008-09 u/s 143(3)/147 of the Act, vide order dated 07/03/2016, against which, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A), who had dismissed the appeal of the assessee. As before the Tribunal, the assessee has opted VSVS scheme for the said appeal and Form No. 3 has been issued. The said appeal was disposed off by the coordinate bench of this Tribunal vide order dated 24/02/2021. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ht to have been that the residential house was constructed jointly by the individual and the HUF and, therefore, the appellant is entitled for exemption u/s 54F of the I.T. Act. 4) The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming disallowance of development expenditure of ₹ 6,50,OOO/- and the expenditure incurred in the apartment towards interiors of ₹ 7,25,500/-. 5) Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the assessee, a HUF, deriving share income, interest and remuneration from partnership firms, filed his return of income for the AY 2010-11 on 31/12/2011 admitting a total income of ₹ 2,03,030/- and agricultural income of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee in HUF individual capacities. The AO did not allow the claim of developmental expenses in the absence of reliable evidences and disallowed the deduction u/s 54F as the construction of house was already shown to be completed in the individual hands of the assessee. Further, on sale of flats the assessee admitted short term capital gains. In computation of STCG, the assessee claimed to have spent ₹ 7,27,500/- interior expenses on flats and claimed as expenditure. In the absence of proper/reliable evidences with regard to above expenses, the same was not allowed. The AO brought out the following facts in his assessment order to deny the deduction u/s 54F of the Act: 3. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee preferred an app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... now before the Hon'ble Income tax Appellate Tribunal contesting the determination of the capital gain; confirming the rejection of the claim U/S 54F and confirming the disallowance of development expenditure of ₹ 6,50,000/-. 3. After completion of the assessment for the assessment year 2010-11, the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2008-09 issued notice U/S 148 read with section 147 on 16.02.2016 to tax the capital gain arising on entering into development agreement. He completed the assessment U/S 143(3) on 07.03.2016 determining the capital gain on entering into development agreement at ₹ 19,26,726/-. It was the contention of the appellant before the Assessing Officer that the said amount was already taxed fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relied on the orders of the revenue authorities. 7. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record as well as gone through the orders of revenue authorities. Before denying the assessee s claim of deduction u/s 54F of the Act, the AO observed that the assessee possess a residential house at D. No. 4-2-560/1, Radhakrishna Nagar, Haveli Panchayat, Khammam in individual capacity which was constructed in FY 2008-09 with a cost of construction of ₹ 23 lakhs out of which ₹ 15.9 lakhs was taken as loan from Dhanalakshmi Bank, Khammanm. The assessee now in his HUF capacity has shown the same residential building owned in the capacity of individual status for claiming deduction u/s 54 for the impugned AY ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
