TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (4) TMI 1088
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er submitted that during the period, the Karta of HUF, Shri B. Pullam Raju was ill, therefore, it was not possible to file the appeal within the time allowed under the Act. The A.R. further submitted that the assessee has filed an affidavit stating the reasons for delay in filing the appeal. Therefore, requested to condone the marginal delay of 5 days in filing the appeal. On the other hand, the Ld. D.R. did not raise any objections. Having considered the rival submissions and also perusal of the affidavit filed by the assessee, we find that the delay of 5 days in filing the appeal is neither intentional nor deliberate. Hence, by exercising powers vested with the Tribunal under section 253(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, we condone the dela....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....roperty. Similarly, it has claimed exemption u/s 54F of the Act, for sale of long term capital asset other than residential house property and reinvested the proceeds in purchase of residential house property. The Assessing Officer after considering the submissions made by the assessee, allowed exemption u/s 54 of the Act towards sale of residential house property at M.V.P. Colony and purchase of another residential flat at Bangalore. However, restricted the exemption to the extent of Rs. 29,00,000/- lakhs and disallowed the balance amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- in the absence of supporting documents. The Assessing Officer, further disallowed the exemption claimed u/s 54F of the Act for the reason that as on the date of sale, the assessee owned ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 10 lakhs towards purchase of residential flats 401 & 502. In the absence of specific information regarding nature of additional work done, the benefit of exemption u/s 54F of the Act cannot be allowed. Aggrieved by the CIT(A) order, the assessee is in appeal before us. 5. The Ld. A.R. of the assessee submitted that the CIT(A) was erred in denying the benefit of exemption u/s 54F for Rs. 10 lakhs towards additional work done for the flats at Bangalore. The A.R. further submitted that the assessee has furnished a confirmation letter from the builder and builder stated that he has carried out additional works for the two flats, therefore, Assessing Officer and CIT(A) was not correct in denying the benefit of exemption for Rs. 10 lakhs u/s 54....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....said confirmation letter, the builder stated that he has incurred an amount of Rs. 8,23,000/- for flat no.401 & Rs. 4,43,515/- for flat no.502 and the amount spent was appropriated out of the amount paid by the assessee on 20.7.2009 and 24.7.2009. On further verification of the ledger extract submitted by the builder, it was noticed that the assessee has paid an amount of Rs. 29 lakhs towards flat no.401 and Rs. 25 lakhs towards flat no.502. As per said ledger accounts, the total cost including registration and additional works incurred for the flat is Rs. 29 lakhs for flat no.401 & Rs. 25 lakhs for flat no.502. As against this, the assessee has claimed exemption of Rs. 35 lakhs for flat no.401 & Rs. 29 lakhs for flat no.502. The additional....