TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (4) TMI 70
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... allowing or denying the claim of deduction u/s 54F in respect of investment in house property at Chomu of Rs. 58,51,276/- on the ground that purchase of plot on which the construction is made not in the name of assessee HUF. (b) Allowing the deduction on account of indexed cost of improvement t Rs. 1,50,000/- against Rs. 2,18,905/- claimed by the assessee. (3) The ld. CIT(A) further erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in confirming the addition of Rs. 5,39,500/- on account of by treating the excess of cash deposit in the bank account over the cash withdrawals as unexplained cash credit. The addition so made and confirmed by the CIT(A) is totally contrary to the provisions of law and facts and hence the same may kindly be deleted in full. (4) The ld. CIT(A) further erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in confirming the action of the AO in treating the agriculture income of Rs. 2,35,320/- as income from other sources and making addition for the same. Hence the addition so made and confirmed by the CIT(A) is totally contrary to the provision of law and fats n hence the same may kindly be deleted in full. (5) Further alterna....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essee carried the matter in appeal before the ld CIT(A) who has denied both the claims of the assessee. The relevant findings are reproduced as under: "As regards rejection of excess claim of Rs. 68,905/- in respect of cost of construction of room and boundary wall, the assessee claimed total expenses for Rs. 2,18,905/- (1,52,685/- + 66,220/-). This expenses was stated to be incurred in F.Y. 2009-10 and 2010-11. However, The AO noted that in the sale deed the compound wall and room was stated to be 30 years old. Accordingly the AO held that such investment was shown simply on estimate basis and accordingly restricted such deduction for Rs. 1,50,000/-. On the other hand the appellant case is that claim of construction of Rs. 2,18,905/- was verifiable from balance sheet. However, during the appellate proceedings, the appellant has not filed any evidence as to how such investment was verifiable from the balance sheet. Therefore, in respect of finding on this issue of the AO no interference is called." "On careful consideration of relevant facts, it may be noted the assessee earlier purchased property in the name of Shri Ram Gopal Bansal and the investment was stated ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the name of Shri Ram Gopal Bansal. There is no reference of the word HUF in both these deeds. However, as the funds for purchase of this property has come from HUF, the property is declared in the balance sheet of HUF and accepted by the department. On sale of this property, though there is no reference of the word HUF in the sale deed, the capital gain is declared by the HUF and also assessed by the AO in HUF. After sale of this HUF property, assessee HUF purchased the residential plot of land as per sale agreement dated 22.12.2010 for Rs. 8,01,000/- and the possession of the plot is handed over to the assessee HUF. The purchase of the land is duly declared in the balance sheet of the assessee HUF as on 31.03.2011. The payment towards land value and subsequent construction thereon is made from the funds of the HUF and reflected in the balance sheet of assessee HUF as on 31.03.2011, as on 31.03.2012 and as on 31.03.2013 and also in the statement of the Karta recorded u/s 131 during the course of assessment proceedings. Therefore, only because in the sale agreement, there is no reference the HUF would not make the purchase of the land and construction thereon as the individual p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Daughter-in-law In this case the land sold and land purchased both were in the same name is Ram Gopal Bansal 2. This is the case of nonmaintenance of books of accounts. This is the cse of maintenance of books of accounts regularly and transaction duly reflected in the books nd B/s from so many years. 3. This is the case of u/s 54B This is the case of u/s 54 4 In this case funds or investment has been done for transfer from one persons to another persons In this case funds or investment has not been done or transfer from one persons to another persons. The same is done in the same name. In section 54B exemption is given for purchase of land and in sec. 54, exemption is given for construction of residential house not for purchase of land. And it is not disputed that the residential house has been constructed from the funds of HUF and shown in the B/s of HUF as also admitted by the Karta in his statements recorded by the AO during the course of assessment proceedings. However the ld. AO has escaped those facts in his order. In view of the above, when the funds of the HUF has been utilized for purchase of the residential plot and construction ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h is subject matter of dispute before us. 2.5 The above undisputed facts show clearly that the assessee has been consistent in its approach in terms of treatment and disclosure of the purchase and sale and subsequent purchase of the properties. It so happened that in the agreements, the name of Shri Ram Gopal Bansal has been mentioned wherein all the relevant facts taken together leads to the conclusion that all these transactions have been effectively done by Shri Ram Gopal Bansal as a Karta of the HUF and not in his individual capacity. Secondly, the provisions of section 45 and section 54 of the Act should be read in a harmonious manner and the Revenue has to take a holistic view of matter wherein all the facts should be considered in totality rather in a piecemeal approach. In the instant case whether the sale consideration has been brought to tax in hands of Ram Gopal Bansal HUF, the subsequent claim of relief u/s 54 should have been allowed to the assessee knowing fully well that both the original purchase/sale agreements and subsequent purchase agreement, the name has been mentioned as Ram Gopal Bansal and not Shri Ram Gopal Bansal HUF. Here, we do not agree with th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and even though it has been registered in joint names, support the case of the assessee. In entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case and respectfully following the decisions as referred supra, the assessee should be eligible to claim the necessary relief u/s 54 of the Act of Rs. 58,51,276 in respect of investment in plot of land and subsequent construction of house thereon. 2.6 Regarding claim of Rs. 68,905/- in respect of cost of construction of room and boundary wall, we have gone through the order of the ld. CIT(A) and are of the view that no interfere is called for. 2.7 Hence ground No.2 is partly allowed where the assessee is allowed relief under section 54 of the Act of Rs. 58,51,276 in respect of investment in plot of land and subsequent construction of house thereon. and claim of Rs. 68,905 is denied. 3. Regarding ground no.3, the assessee has challenged the action of ld. CIT(A) who has confirmed an addition of Rs. 5,39,500/- on account of excess cash deposit over the cash withdrawal in the account maintained by the assessee. 3.1 The ld. AR has submitted that, the assessee as on 31-03-2010 was having cash balance of Rs. 2,08,829/- and debtors of R....