TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (6) TMI 523
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... cost of acquisition of immovable property for computing capital gain. 3. Facts in brief relating to the first issue in dispute are, assessee an individual is a director in M/s VBC Ferro Alloys Ltd. For the AY under consideration, he filed his return of income on 31/07/2008 declaring total income of Rs. 8,01,325 besides agricultural income of Rs. 1,50,000. During the assessment proceeding, AO on verifying the materials on record noticed that though assessee during the year has sold immovable property and derived capital gain but at the same time, he has claimed deduction u/s 54F of the Act for an amount of Rs. 50,37,209. When AO called upon assessee to produce documentary evidence to justify the claim of deduction u/s 54, assessee furnishe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g of appeal before ld. CIT(A), reiterating what was stated before AO, assessee submitted that being unaware of the legal position, assessee had deposited the sale consideration in SB account in stead of capital gain account scheme. He further submitted, since the entire sale proceed was utilized for construction of a house, assessee is eligible for deduction u/s 54. In support of his claim, assessee submitted a copy of the agreement entered into with his father. Ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions of assessee in the context of facts and materials on record, observed that assessee is not entitled for deduction u/s 54 as he has not fulfilled the conditions of the said provision by depositing the capital gain in capital gain account s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ITD 520 and decision of ITAT Hyderabad Bench in case of M. Janardhan Reddy Vs. ITO, ITA No. 1238/Hyd/06 dated 30/03/2009. As far as construction of a new house is concerned, ld. AR referring to the agreement submitted, as assessee in terms with the agreement has constructed a house on the plot of land belonging to his father, he is eligible for deduction u/s 54. In this context, he referred to a decision of ITAT, Mumbai Bench in case of JCIT Vs. Smt. Armeda K. Bhaya, 95 ITD 313 (Mum.). Referring to the bank account, ld. AR submitted, withdrawals made were for the purpose of construction of house property. 6. Ld. DR, on the other hand, submitted, as assessee has failed to comply to the conditions imposed u/s 54 of the Act by depositing the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t, it does not indicate in clear terms as to whether the ownership rights over the property was transferred to assessee by his father or father has given uphis right over the said property in favour of assessee. Moreover, a reference to the bank account copy, which has been filed in the paper book, though reveal that assessee has withdrawn an amount of Rs. 52,75,000 during the PY, but, for what purpose these amounts have been withdrawn is not known. Assessee has not submitted any documentary evidence to establish his claim that the amount withdrawn from the bank account out of the sale proceeds of immovable property were actually utilized for construction of new house. Therefore, in absence of even a single piece of evidence to indicate tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....after indexation, the same was adopted at Rs. 25,62,791. AO observing that assessee has not furnished any basis for adoption of cost acquisition at Rs. 8 lakhs, recomputed indexed cost of acquisition at Rs. 7,49,634. Before ld. CIT(A), assessee submitted the details of cost of acquisition as under: (Rs.) i) ii) 710/9960 sq.ft. of undivided share in land as per sale deed Stamp duty for executing sale deed 2,07,083 26,923 iii) iv) v) Cost considered by AO Cost of construction paid to Parsn Foundation Cost of cup boards, interiors etc. Regn. Charges as mentioned on the back ofpage 1 of sale deed 2,34,006 4,32,720 1,31,190 2,084 &....