TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (12) TMI 1016
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tuated in survey No. 464, Ameenapur village, Patancheru Mandal of Medak District to one Sri E.V. Raja Reddy. The sale consideration was Rs. 1 crore but the purchaser got the property registered on 24.10.2007 by adopting the sale consideration at Rs. 24,37,500. 4. The Income-Tax authorities conducted search and seizure operations u/s 132 of the I.T. Act on 25.10.2007 at the premises of the petitioner herein and found cash of Rs. 69 lakhs and gold jewellery of Rs. 640 grams. The authorities seized the cash available of Rs. 69 lakhs though the petitioner submitted that the said amount is a part of sale consideration of agricultural lands. Consequent to the search, the Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 153A for the earlier assessment years and the assessee filed the returns of income. No addition was made for any of the earlier assessment years and no dispute arose for any of such years. For the A.Y. 2008-09, the petitioner offered income from profession of Rs. 4,98,593 and claimed that the gain on sale of agricultural land worked out to a negative figure of Rs. 7,63,451. 5. With regard to the capital gain, the Assessing Officer did not allow the claim for exemption u/s. 54F of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for construction was taken in the name of his wife only. Even the subsequent construction, namely expansion of the house, the permission is not in the name of the assessee. The assessee has not produced any evidence for expansion of the already existing house, hence in our opinion the assessee has to adduce evidence to prove that construction has in fact been carried out by him on the land, which belonging to his wife. Further, the assessee has to establish that the funds have been provided by him and establish that the movement of the funds from the account of the assessee to the construction account of the expanded building. 20. We have carefully examined the facts of the case. We are of the view that residential property should be either acquired or constructed out of the own funds or sale proceeds of the capital asset, on which, deduction u/ s 54F is claimed. In the present case, it appears that the funds have not been provided by the assessee and it is seen that the assessee's wife has spent out of her overdraft account for the construction of the house. Since the assessee has not established the fund flow statement that the assessee himself provided the funds for the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h. 14. The petitioner further submits that on merits the following explanations may kindly be considered. 15. At para No. 21, the Tribunal rejected the plea of the assessee that the asset does not represent capital asset within the meaning of Sec. 2(14) of the IT Act by following the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Smt. Gousia Begum and others in ITA No. 1024/ Hyd/2011 dated 16.1.2011. In this regard the petitioner submits that the said decision has no application to the facts of the petitioner's case. In the case of Smt. Gousia Begum and others, the land was within 8 km. from Hyderabad Municipal limits and is not within the notified area of the local municipality. In the case of the petitioner, the land is beyond 8 km. from the Hyderabad Municipality and also beyond 8 km from the local Municipality i.e. Patancheru. 16. It is submitted that the Ameenapur village is in the Ramachandrapuram Mandal of Medak Dist. The village is beyond 8 km. from Hyderabad Municipal limits and the. Ramachandrapuram Municipality. It is not within the notified area. Therefore, the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal is not applicable to the fact....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion being one issued by a statutorily constituted civic body, it prevails over other statements and evidences that have been relied upon by the Revenue for denying the assessee, its claim of exemption under s. 54F of the Act. Assessee clarified other observations of the Revenue authorities, such as, a construction being in progress at the time of search, through her explanations, which have not been found to be false. In the circumstances of the case, in the absence of any material to the contrary brought on record by the Revenue, we are inclined to accept the version of the assessee that the property in question purchased by her was not merely a plot of land, but with some residential structure thereon in a semi-finished condition. The version of the assessee of having invested an amount of Rs. 1,74,795 for the completion of residential structure on the plot purchased, was disbelieved on the ground of the smallness of the investment claimed. Considering the fact that the assessee purchased the plot of land with a structure existing thereon in semi-finished condition, it cannot be said that the amount claimed to have been spent by the assessee for competing the structure, so as to....