TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 192X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n made by assessee. That means, the assessee was owner of at least 2 residential houses, viz. one at S.No. (iii) admitted by assessee; and another at S.No. (ii) being the flat at Pune . Having found that the assessee was owner of at least 2 residential houses, we are in agreement with the twin-issues raised by Ld. PCIT i.e. (i) the exemption u/s 54F has been wrongly allowed to assessee; (ii) by not declaring notional income from properties under Income from house property head, there was underassessment of taxable income. Therefore, the Ld. PCIT has rightly termed the assessment-order as erroneous in so far it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue.Decided against assessee. - ITA No. 53/Ind/2020 - - - Dated:- 28-3-2023 - MS. MA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g such a view, as culled out from show-cause notice dated 11.09.2019 issued by Ld. PCIT, are two-fold as under: (i) The assessee had claimed exemption of Rs. 52,53,008/- u/s 54F despite being owner of 4 residential house properties on the date of transfer of original asset (i.e. relinquishment of right) from which the capital gain was derived, which is not allowed by section 54F. Thus, the AO has wrongly allowed exemption. (ii) The assessee was owner of more than one properties, still not declared notional income taxable under Income from house property from properties other than self-occupied and actually let out. This has resulted in under-assessment of taxable income. 4. By the aforesaid show-cause notice, the assessee was ask ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uch revision-order, the assessee has filed this appeal. 8. By means of various grounds raised in the Appeal Memo which are not being reproduced for the sake of brevity, the appellant-assessee requires us to adjudicate whether or not the revision-order passed by Ld. PCIT u/s 263 is valid in the eyes of law? 9. Ld. AR representing the assessee submitted that the assessee earned capital gain from transfer of asset (relinquishment of right) made on 02.01.2015. Ld. AR submitted that the assessee owned only 1 residential house on 02.01.2015 and there is a wrong impression gained by Ld. PCIT that the assessee owned 4 residential houses. The Ld. AR has filed the details of alleged 4 houses in his Written-Synopsis as under: (i) Bunglow at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... carried out on this. The assessee claimed exemption u/s 54F in respect of land cost, stamp duty charges and the construction cost undertaken after the date of transfer amounting to Rs. 52,53,008/-. 10. Thus, the Ld. AR claimed that on the date of transfer i.e. 02.01.2015, the assessee was owner of only 1 residential house being a flat at Aakriti enumerated in the preceding paragraph at S.No. (iii). Ld. AR conceded that it is true that the section 54F does not grant exemption if the assessee is owner of more than 1 residential house on the date of transfer. But in the present case, the assessee was owner of only 1 residential house and hence the exemption u/s 54F was rightly claimed by assessee and allowed by AO. At that stage, the B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AR admitted inability of assessee to submit the same. Therefore, we have no option except to conclude that since the flat at Pune is appearing in the Balance-Sheet of assessee, the investment had also been made by assessee. That means, the assessee was owner of at least 2 residential houses, viz. one at S.No. (iii) admitted by assessee; and another at S.No. (ii) being the flat at Pune . 11. Having found that the assessee was owner of at least 2 residential houses, we are in agreement with the twin-issues raised by Ld. PCIT i.e. (i) the exemption u/s 54F has been wrongly allowed to assessee; (ii) by not declaring notional income from properties under Income from house property head, there was underassessment of taxable income. Theref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
