TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal decision on property sale: upheld Rs. 25,00,000 addition, overturned exemption denial under Section 54</h1> <h3>Smt. K. Rajani Kumari, Versus Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax Circle 1, Hyderabad</h3> Smt. K. Rajani Kumari, Versus Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax Circle 1, Hyderabad - TMI Issues Involved:1. Addition of Rs. 25,00,000 based on a pro-note entry in a seized diary.2. Denial of exemption under Section 54 of the Income Tax Act.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Addition of Rs. 25,00,000 based on a pro-note entry in a seized diary:The assessee contested the addition of Rs. 25,00,000 made by the Assessing Officer (AO) based on an entry in a seized diary during search operations. The AO concluded that the total sale consideration for the property was Rs. 1,65,00,000, contrary to the assessee's claim of Rs. 65,00,000. The AO noted that the seized diary indicated a sale consideration of Rs. 1,65,00,000, including a Rs. 25,00,000 pro-note. The assessee acknowledged the diary entries except for the Rs. 25,00,000 pro-note, claiming it was not received. The AO opined that the pro-note indicated a promise to pay, implying the amount was received later. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, noting that the diary entries were corroborated by the registered sale deed and the assessee's admission of Rs. 1,40,00,000 as sale consideration. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A), citing the Delhi High Court's ruling in CIT V/s. Sonal Constructions and Anr., which allows additions based on seized documents even without corroboration if their probative value is high. The Tribunal concluded that the Rs. 25,00,000 pro-note formed part of the sale consideration, as its absence during the search suggested it was realized and destroyed. Thus, the total sale consideration was upheld at Rs. 1,65,00,000.2. Denial of exemption under Section 54 of the Income Tax Act:The AO denied the assessee's claim for exemption under Section 54, arguing that the property purchased was a vacant plot, not a residential house, and no investment was made in constructing a house within the stipulated time. The assessee contended that the property purchased included a semi-finished structure, which was completed with an additional investment of Rs. 1,74,795. The assessee provided a property tax receipt as evidence of the residential structure's existence. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, but the Tribunal disagreed. The Tribunal noted that the property tax receipt issued by a statutory authority indicated a residential structure, and the small investment claimed for completing the structure was reasonable given it was semi-finished. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's version, directing the AO to grant the exemption under Section 54, subject to other conditions being met.Conclusion:The appeal was partly allowed. The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 25,00,000 based on the pro-note entry, concluding the total sale consideration was Rs. 1,65,00,000. However, it overturned the denial of exemption under Section 54, directing the AO to accept the exemption claim, acknowledging the property included a semi-finished residential structure.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
