TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (12) TMI 689
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iled return declaring total income at Rs. 21,05,164/- on 20.2.2007. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has claimed exemption u/s. 54F of the Act being investment in residential house. The AO observed that the assessee has received a sum of Rs. 1.67 crores on surrender of tenancy right on which legal fees paid amounted to Rs. 1,00,000/-. The AO found that the assessee has claimed investment of Rs. 1,38,32,000/- towards purchase of four residential flats and computed capital gains by claiming full exemption on the invested amount of Rs. 1,38,32,000/- u/s. 54F of the Act. The AO sought clarification from the assessee in respect of the exemption so claimed on the following points: (....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at the three units are to be made one unit as they are adjacent to each other. Reliance was placed on certain judicial pronouncement wherein it has been held that contiguous units are to be treated as one residential house. The above submissions of the assessee were rejected by the AO. The AO was of the opinion that the assessee has not purchased one house but three different houses for which agreements were not executed till November, 2008, even the agreement which was subsequently entered are neither stamped nor registered. Further the assessee has not deposited the amount of capital gain in a designated capital gain account scheme by the due date of filing of return u/s. 139(1) of the Act. The AO concluded that the assessee went on viola....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....The Ld. Counsel further submitted that the assessee has paid a sum of Rs. 1,32,99,000/- before the due date of filing of return u/s. 139(4) of the Act. Ld. Counsel further contended that u/s. 54F(4) the mandate is to deposit the amount not used towards construction of house before filing of return u/s. 139. The provision nowhere specifically mentions that it has to be on or before the due date for filing of return u/s. 139(1) of the Act. Thus all the facts considered into totality would lead to only one conclusion that assessee has invested the net capital gain towards construction of a residential house and is eligible for deduction u/s. 54F of the Act. 7. Per contra, Ld. Departmental Representative relied upon the orders of the lower aut....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....'. Stilt + Podium + 1st to 17th floor, which means that even after the lapse of 5 months from the date of allotment, there was no approval for the construction of 9th floor of 'C' Wing. It is only on 7th September, 2010, the commencement certificate is made valid and further extended for entire work for Wing 'C' Stilt + Podium + 1st to 9th Floor as per amended plan dt. 7.7.2008. These facts clearly suggest that the allotment was only for a future event which was not even in existence at the time of the issuing the allotment letter. Although the tenancy right was surrendered on 13.9.2005, the agreement for sale was entered on 24.11.2008 which itself is beyond the period of limitation prescribed u/s. 54F of the Act. The contention of the Ld. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntial unit, when the construction is not completed even after a lapse of more than 7 years. By merely filing of the design in the form of an internal map, would not suffice. It is only by physical verification, the contention of the assessee could be established that three flats are one residential unit having one common passage, one electricity meter and one municipal corporation number. These mandatory things could be established by the assessee as the flats are yet to be completed. 11. It is the say of the assessee that the delay in the construction is attributable to the builder and the assessee cannot be penalized for something which is not in his hand. We do not agree with this contention because as per the entries in the certificate....