TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (1) TMI 288
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... return of income on 31-7-2003 declaring total income of Rs. 18,000/-. Though the assessee declared long term capital gain of Rs. 7,62,800/-, but the entire amount was claimed as deduction u/s 54F of the Act towards investment in construction of a house property. On the basis of information that the assessee along with three others had given plot of 1000 square yards situated at D.No.12-1-923/5, Mallepally, Hyderabad for development by entering into a development agreement cum GPA, reopened the assessment by issuing a notice u/s 148 of the Act. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer called upon the assessee to produce evidence such as municipal approval, date of commencement, completion of cost of construction etc., to pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Rs. 7,62,800/- and also the short term capital gain on the sale of 8 flats and one shop. However, neither before the Assessing Officer nor before me any documentary evidence was filed by the assessee to substantiate its claim. It is well settled law that onus is on the assessee to submit complete evidences before the Assessing Officer before claiming any deduction. To strengthen this view reliance is placed on e decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases of CIT vs. Calcutta Agency Ld. 19 ITR 1991, where it is held that the onus is on the assessee to prove necessary facts in order to claim any deduction. Similarly, Hon'ble A.P. High Court in the case of CIT vs. Transporting Corporation of India Ltd., 256 ITR 701 and in the case of CIT vs. I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r not has arbitrarily come to a conclusion that there is no investment made by the assessee for construction of the house to claim of deduction u/s 54F of the Act. 3. The learned DR, on the other hand, supporting the orders of the CIT (A) as well as Assessing Officer submitted that when the assessee failed to furnish any evidence to substantiate its claim that it has actually invested in construction of house, the disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 54F of the Act was justified. 4. We have heard contentions of the parties and perused the materials on record. The only issue before us, is whether the assessee has invested the capital gains in construction of new house property so as to claim deduction u/s 54F of the Act. On perusal of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unicipal tax receipt of the house in question, investment for which was claimed as deduction u/s 54F of the Act. On a perusal of the said receipt dated 24/12/2013 prima facie it appears that a house exists in door No.15-6-190/1/J, against which the assessee has claimed deduction/s 54F of the Act. When the Assessing Officer does not dispute the fact that the assessee has derived capital gains from sale of flat, then the fact that this was utilised for construction of the house cannot be disbelieved, when no contrary material has been brought on record to show that amount was utilised in any other manner. Since, the aforesaid municipal tax receipt was not produced either before the Assessing Officer or before the CIT (A), we direct the Assess....