TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (7) TMI 518
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l income of Rs. 43.86 lacs (rounded off). During the period relevant to the said assessment year, the petitioner had sold two immovable properties, namely, plot at Rancharda and an office in Agrawal complex, Ahmedabad for sale consideration of Rs. 2.84 crores (rounded off) and Rs. 30 lacs respectively. Out of such sale proceeds, the petitioner had claimed exemption of Rs. 2.75 crores (rounded off) under section 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short). His claim was based on investment made by the assessee in two residential plots being plot nos. 51 and 52 at Basantvihar complex, Bopal which the assessee acquired for sale consideration of Rs. 1.08 and Rs. 1.47 crores respectively. 3. The return of the assessee was taken in scr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment made by the assessee in residential house. Section 54F of the Income-Act clearly speaks that the assessee has made investment in two residential plots whereas no such provision in the section 54F of the Act that the assessee should have to make investment in two residential plots. If assessee has made an investment in residential plot, he should have completed the construction activities of such house within three years from the date of transfer of original asset. But the assessee has not filed any proof of construction activities being carried over on the said plots of land during the assessment proceedings. Even though no such detail/information available on record, that the assessee has construction the new house on the said plots. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Such objections were however rejected by order dated 13.8.2014. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully all material facts. Even reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer suggest that his conclusions are based on materials on record. Notices for re-opening beyond period of four years therefore, was invalid. The counsel further submitted that even otherwise, the Assessing Officer had examined the claim in detail in the original assessment. Any addition, now on the same ground would be based on mere change of opinion. 6. Counsel for revenue opposed the petition contending that the exemption under section 54F of the Act was not allowabale since the as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....estion was examined by the Assessing Officer during original assessment. Our belief that the assessee had disclosed full facts is reinforced while examining such contention. In this context, the assessment record would show that during such assessment, the Assessing Officer had raised demand for supply of various details under a letter dated 27.09.2011, one of them being residential proof in connection with exemption under section 54F of the Act. In reply to such query, the assessee had under letter dated 10.12.2011 supplied following information to the Assessing Officer: "4. (A) Copies of : i. Sale Deed dated 11.2.2009 of Plot of Land at Rancharda, Ta: Kalol, Dist: Gandhinagar of Rs. 2,84,00,800/-. ii. Sale Deed dated 21.11.2008 of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ll the expenses such as Stamp Duty, Registration Fees, Transfer fees etc. as also Solicitors/Advocates Fees and all other miscellaneous expenses in respect of the documents to be executed by the Vendor in favour of the purchaser both present and future shall be borne by the Vendor and Purchaser in equal proportions." assesee has shwon the total cost of the property of Rs. 44,86,390/-. Thus, it is clear from the said clause that, assesee has borne only 50% of the expenses whereas while computing the long term capital gain on sale of the property in question, the assesee has claimed the whole expenditure as cost of property inasmuch as the acquisition cost is taken at Rs. 10,48,000/-. The cost of the property includes the following: Cost of....