TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (4) TMI 1098
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Income Tax Act, 1961 without appreciating the submission made and evidence adduced, therefore addition sustained deserves to be deleted. 1.2 That the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in observing that investment in another property Flat No. 208, Balaji Tower, Jagatpura has no where been declared by the assessee, while observing so the Ld. CIT(A) has fully ignored the fact that assessee has declared the investment in house property while filing return of income and submitted the necessary details during the course of assessment proceedings, thus observation of the Ld. CIT(A) deserves to be ignored and excluded. 1.3 That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the binding decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court given in case of CIT Vs. D A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e on 20/12/2007, which shows that the assessee had sold out a plot of land measuring 836.10 sq. mtrs situated at 123-Green Park Scheme Badchela Jagatpura, Sanganer, Jaipur to one Shri Amit Dube for consideration of Rs. 50 lacs. The assessee was given reasonable opportunity of being heard on this issue. It was claimed by the assessee before the Assessing Officer that he purchased this house on 02/3/2003 for Rs. 6,26,000/-, which was paid through bank account. The assessee paid conversion charges of Rs. 55,000/- on 01/10/2004 to JDA and also claimed cost of development at Rs. 94,000/- on the basis of self serving paper signed by one Shri Anil Shukla claiming him as Civil Engineer. There is no identity and address of the person making calculat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....In this context, the assessee has gain filed a letter sustain as under:- "In the aforesaid context, it may be submitted that the details of expenses of Rs. 19,66,500/- was actually an estimate furnished by the Architect in respect of the entire work to be executed. Inadvertently, the same was attached with the other papers submitted the same deserves to be ignored." The assessee filed contradictory reply before the Assessing Officer. The assessee could not produce any cogent evidence for claiming of deduction U/s 54 of the Act before the Assessing Officer. The assessee had made various payments in total Rs. 39,24,251/- to M/s Shree Salasar Balaji Colonisers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur, which was claimed to be paid by the assessee for purchase of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter before the ld CIT(A), who had allowed the appeal partly by observing that the benefit U/s 54 of the Act is allowable to the extent of one residential house. Moreover the assessee has already was having a house property situated at 72, Income Tax Colony, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur. Another property purchased i.e. flat No. 208, second floor, Balaji Tower-III in same building has not been declared by the assessee, which was detected by the Assessing Officer after collecting information from the developers U/s 133(6) of the Act. Therefore, the claim of assessee is not acceptable. The case laws relied by the assessee before the ld CIT(A) are not squarely applicable. Regarding indexed cost, it has b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Choudhari Vs. CWT (Alhd) (iv) 102 ITD 281 ACIT Vs Leela P. Nanda (Mum). (v) Taxmann.com 440 CIT Vs Smt. Jyothi K. Mehta (Kar.). 5. At the outset, the ld DR has vehemently supported the order of the ld CIT(A) and further argued that deduction U/s 54F is allowable only on one house. The assessee claimed during the assessment proceedings deduction U/s 54F on second house also, which is not permitted under the law. As the assessee has not disclosed the second flat purchased in computation of total income by the assessee. Further whatever evidence given by the assessee are on simple paper for cost of boundary/improvement, which are not verifiable. Therefore, order of the ld CIT(A) may please be confirmed. 6. We have heard the rival conten....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for commercial use. It is further held by the Hon'ble High Court that "We are, therefore, unable to see how or why the physical structuring of the new residential house, whether it is lateral or vertical, should come in the way of considering the building as a residential house. We do not think that the fact that the residential house consists of several independent units can be permitted to act as an impediment to the allowance of the deduction under section 54/54F. It is neither expressly nor by necessary implication prohibited. BY respectfully following the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court, we reverse the order of the ld CIT(A) and allow deduction claimed U/s 54 of the Act by the assessee on two flats even on different storey....