TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (8) TMI 578
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....alaxy" for a consideration of Rs. 22,38,920 and Rs. 31,74,620 respectively. (Assessing Officer observed that purchase consideration, as per sale agreements dated 22-8-2006, was Rs. 22,31,500 for Flat 102A and Rs. 31,64,120 for Flat 102B). 2. During the course of assessment proceedings, Counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee was born in the same place and from time of his birth he was living in the ground floor portion of bungalow, known as "Mayank", having an area of about 1300 sq. feet carpet area, as tenants. They also had the use of compound on garden area of the bungalow. Since assessee and his wife were accustomed to live in a large space for many years, as tenants, upon development and purchase of flats, they had to combine the adjacent flats to make it into one single unit. The carpet area of flat No. 102A was 394sq. feet and 102B was 554 sq. feet and thus the total carpet area works out to 948sq. feet. It was thus contended that both the residential units were treated as one residential unit and exemption under section 54F be granted. 3. Assessing Officer had sent a Ward Inspector to visit the premises on 16-1-2009 who reported that there were no modifications o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....only the nominees of the first beneficial owner. Under the circumstances, the Assessing Officer was of the view that the decision of the ITAT in the case of Dr. Mrs. Sudha Trivedi (supra) is distinguishable since the assessee was not the main-holder of the shares. He accordingly disallowed a sum of Rs. 23 lakhs. 6. On an appeal filed before learned CIT(A) the plea of the assessee was that the occupation of the flat having not been disputed as a single unit merely because two separate agreements were entered into for the sake of registration; it should not come in the way of claiming deduction u/s. 54F of the Act. Similarly it was contended that the assessee invested a sum of Rs. 46 lakhs in REC bonds and merely because name of the wife is also appearing in the certificate claim made u/s. 54EC of the Act should not be denied. 7. Learned CIT(A) observed that the Inspector's report clearly indicates that there is one single unit and hence it is not possible that unit No. 102B has vanished at the time of his visit. He therefore concluded that only one single unit was purchased by the assessee vide two separate agreements. Without prejudice, he assumed that even if two or more separat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ned Departmental Representative submitted that u/s. 54F of the Income Tax Act the assessee has to prove that he has purchased a residential house within a period of two years from the date of transfer of a capital asset whereas in the instant case there is no proof to show that the assessee has purchased a residential property; merely because he is residing in 'Hercules Vasant Galaxy' flat it cannot be said that the property was purchased since there is no evidence to that effect. On the contrary, sale deeds depict that he had purchased two separate properties in the building known as 'Hercules Vasant Galaxy', having two wings as per building lay out/plan sanctioned by the Municipal Corporation. First sale agreement refers to an agreement to purchase carpet area of 394 sq.ft. only and nothing has been indicated with regard to the so-called flat though it was stated that it refers to flat No. 102A on Wing 'A'. Similarly sale agreement for a carpet area 554 sq.ft., referable to Flat No. 102B, in the building known as 'Hercules' do not indicate specification and design of the flat. It is difficult to assume that the party would be so naive to enter into sale deeds without seeing the d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sq. feet without mentioning as to whether it consists of one room, kitchen, balcony etc., or of any other dimension. Similarly, the second agreement also merely mentions about 554 sq. feet and both the sale deeds do not contain the specifications of carpet area of the flats. Even before us assessee could not furnish any municipal plan or brochure to suggest that he has entered into a bona fide purchase transactions under two separate sale deeds with an intention to convert them for use as one residential house. 14. We have called for the municipal approved plan and the assessee could not furnish the same. It may be noticed that some plan is annexed to the sale deeds (at pages 93, 94 and 173 and 174) but the learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the assessee, has not referred to that. At any rate, it consists of wing-A and wing-B and it is not known as to how the Municipal Corporation has given its approval if the construction itself is of one flat each in the place of two flats shown in two wings in the approved plan. A person claiming a deduction should come with clean hands. In the instant case, the facts appear to be different. It is not the case of the assessee that atleast ....