2012 (9) TMI 726

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....alue filed during appellate proceedings to substantiate the claim that residential house stood completed after assessment proceedings. Rejection of additional evidence is illegal and bad in law.  2.  That on the facts & circumstances, Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming action of the A.O. of reducing Rs. 12,000/- from cost of shop plot being cost of boundary wall & gate constructed in the year 1987-88 in the absence of vouchers for the same. Action of the Ld. AO is not admitting cost of boundary wall & gate confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) is illegal and bad in law.  3.  That on the facts & circumstances, Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the action of the AO that the amount spent by the assessee on purchase....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....purchase of agricultural land for Rs. 3,11,480/- was made. The assessee later on corrected her claim that the assessee had purchased the residential plot and not the agricultural land along-with co-owner at Rs. 1,65,833/- and Rs. 2,20,000/- were spent for construction of a house and the sources were explained. The Income Tax Inspector was deputed to make on the spot inquiry regarding construction of alleged residential house, who on 25.08.2008 submitted that the assessee had made a boundary wall on this land which is only 2 feet in height. The AO observed that the assessee has neither constructed any residential house nor made any claim for exemption under section 54F in the return of income. The claim under section 54F was made through a l....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... allowed by the ld. CIT(A). The cases relied upon by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) did not help the assessee. Accordingly, the ld. CIT(A) rejected all the grounds of the assessee. 5. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the facts of the case. There is no dispute to the fact that the assessee had purchased the property in 1987. On verification by the Inspector, the boundary wall and gate was also found, is also not under dispute. The assessee had claimed vide letter dated 02.06.2008 exemption under section 54F of the Act during the assessment proceedings before the AO is also not under dispute. The sale consideration has been invested in the construction of the house has been explained by the assessee before both the authori....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....situation, when a house is completed after expiry of three years from the transfer of the original asset, the assessee is entitled to exemption under section 54F of the Act. This view is supported by the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Sardarmal Kothari [2008] 302 ITR 286. The Ld. counsel for the assessee has also placed reliance on the following decisions : (i)  Mrs. Seetha Subramanian v. Asstt. CIT [1996] 59 ITD 94 (ii)  Smt. Ranjit Sandhu v. Dy. CIT [2010] 133 TTJ 46 (Chd)(UO). 5.1 The assessee had submitted application under Rule 46A on having completed the house, after the expiry of three years from the transfer of the original asset along-with electricity bill which was not accepted by the ....