TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (7) TMI 168
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 1000000 Sales Considertion Less: Indexed Cost Purchase Cost 144593 F.Y 2003-04 121500/463*551 Improvement Cost 92981 F. Y 2004-05 81000/480*551 Improvement Cost 97534....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bsp; 24677 3. The Assessing Officer required the assessee to file documentary evidences such as deed receipts etc for the purchase and improvement expenses as shown by the assessee. He has observed that assessee filed the details of the expenses of the cost but no documentary evidences in support were filed by the assessee. In reply to Assessing Officer's query, the assessee filed the details of investments made over the years inter alia pointing out that the payments were made through DD. The details are at pages 2 & 3 of the assessment order. The assessee also filed the allotment letter dated 27th July 2003 in respect of property No. 285 Sector 2HSIDC, Bawal. The assessee filed following reply:- " That all the payments to HSIDC(Govt. Industrial Corp) are made through DD. The bank statement regarding DD issued and some receipts are enclosed. Further the copy of conveyance deed executed with that corporation before executing the sale, which is mandatory, is also enclosed where it is clearing mentioned that payment of Rs. 324000/- has already been made since 21/7/2003." 4. The Assessing Officer accepted that assessee had purchased this p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as to how deduction u/s 54F was allowable to him on purchase of plot because as per the allotment letter of CHD Developers, assessee was allotted a residential plot in CHD City Sector 54 Karnol. The assesses filed following reply:- " Deduction u/s 54F: The documents regarding allotment of flat land of CHD Developers are on record with an earlier reply. Membership of flat society i.e Housing society is duly covered under u/s 54F read with Section 54F as per verdict of the Ld. Gujrat High Court in the case of CIT VS. Jundas Premchand Gandlin in (2005) 279 ITR 552." 6. The assessing officer, after considering the assessese's reply and the provisions of Section 54F, denied the assessee's claim for the following reasons:- (i) As per provisions of Section 54F, the assessee was required to invest whole of the sale consideration in new asset i.e for purchase of residential house or for construction of residential house. (ii) If the assessee was not in the position to invest whole of the amount under any circumstance, he was required to deposit the amount in capital gain account before the due date of filing of his return of income u/s 139 (1) of the Income Tax Act. He pointed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd other documents are on record which were furnished during assessment proceedings. 12. I have considered the written submissions and the submissions of Ld. DR. The facts are not in dispute. The assessee had advanced claim in regard to computation of long term capital gain after giving the details of purchase cost and the improvement cost over 4 years. The indexed cost of acquisition was accordingly computed. The assessing officer, however, only took into consideration the amount paid as per allotment letter and expenses on conveyance deed. The assessee in its reply, as reproduced earlier, stated that all the payments were made through DD. The AO did not accept the entire cost of acquisition claimed at Rs. 4,20,323/-.Mere disallowance of certain expenses claimed by assessee as cost of acquisition could not lead to the conclusion that assessee had advanced any false claim only because assessee was unable to substantiate the same with reference to specific vouchers. The next issue is regarding assessee's claim u/s 54F. Ld. CIT(A) has clearly observed that assessee is entitled to proportionate deduction u/s 54F and, therefore, it cannot be said that assessee had advanced any false....