Section 54F verification direction held permissible, while futures and options loss and section 69 addition were remanded for evidence.

Section 54F relief was upheld where the appellate authority allowed the exemption on principle and merely directed verification of supporting documents; that limited verification was not an impermissible setting aside under section 251(1)(a). The claim also depended on the characterisation of the Padikuppam acquisition as land rather than a residential house for the restrictive condition in section 54F. The trading loss on futures and options was remanded because demat and banking evidence were not produced, and the addition under section 69 relating to said to have been received from Shri K. Kesavan was also remanded for fresh examination due to an incomplete factual record.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the assessee was entitled to exemption under section 54F of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and whether the direction to verify supporting documents amounted to an impermissible setting aside under section 251(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961; (ii) Whether the disallowance of trading loss on futures and options should be sustained or remanded for want of demat and banking evidence; (iii) Whether the addition under section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in respect of the amount stated to have been received from Shri K. Kesavan should be sustained or remanded.

Issue (i): Whether the assessee was entitled to exemption under section 54F of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and whether the direction to verify supporting documents amounted to an impermissible setting aside under section 251(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The exemption claim was examined on the basis that the transaction of purchase of the new residential asset had been acted upon by payment of consideration and handing over of possession, while the Revenue's objection rested on absence of a registered sale deed and the alleged ownership of more than one residential house. The appellate authority allowed the claim on principle and only directed factual verification of supporting documents. Such limited verification did not amount to a remand or a setting aside of the assessment. The issue also turned on the characterization of the Padikuppam acquisition as land and not a residential house for the restrictive clause under section 54F.

Conclusion: The exemption under section 54F was upheld and the verification direction was held to be permissible. The issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the disallowance of trading loss on futures and options should be sustained or remanded for want of demat and banking evidence.

Analysis: The trading loss was rejected below because the assessee had not produced the demat account and other supporting material necessary to establish the transactions and quantify the loss. Since the claim required factual substantiation, one further opportunity was considered appropriate, and the matter was sent back for production of the relevant evidence.

Conclusion: The issue was remanded for fresh verification and is therefore treated as allowed for statistical purposes in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the addition under section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in respect of the amount stated to have been received from Shri K. Kesavan should be sustained or remanded.

Analysis: The addition was found to rest on an incomplete and non-speaking factual foundation, and the record did not clearly disclose how the amount had been treated in assessment. In the absence of adequate supporting material, the matter was sent back so that the assessee could produce evidence and the claim could be examined afresh.

Conclusion: The addition was not finally sustained and the matter was remanded for reconsideration. The issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The Revenue's challenge to the grant of section 54F relief failed, while both assessee issues were sent back for factual verification, resulting in an overall mixed outcome with no final adverse determination against the assessee on the remanded issues.

Ratio Decidendi: A limited direction by the first appellate authority to verify supporting documents, after allowing relief on principle, is not an impermissible setting aside under section 251(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

---