TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (8) TMI 59
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly because the notice issued under section 133(6) of the Act, by the Assessing Officer, to the Contractor and architect returned back. The learned CIT(A) & learned A.O. did not appreciate that the notice has been sent after about six years." 3. This is the second round of litigation before the Tribunal. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the original assessment in this case was completed u/s 143(3) on 01.09.2007 wherein the Assessing Officer had made addition of Rs. 60,62,433/- on account of long term capital gain by disallowing the claim of the assessee on account of exemption u/s 54F of the I.T. Act, 1961. The assessee during the assessment year under consideration had sold a property on 01.09.2007 for Rs. 65,00,000/- and purchased a plot at Noida for Rs. 67,16,225/-. The assessee had claimed exemption u/s 54F on account of long term capital gain of Rs. 60,62,433/-. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of exemption u/s 54F on the ground that the assessee had neither purchased nor constructed any house and the amount of sale consideration was utilized in purchase of plot which cannot be treated as residential house. 4. In appeal, the ld. CIT(A) deleted the disallowa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0. In absence of any documentary evidence to prove that the house was constructed and it became habitable within the stipulated time and in absence of filing of any document in respect of completion of house or electricity connection provided to the assessee, the Assessing Officer discarded the copy of water bills paid for the period from April, 2008 to June, 2013 and held that the assessee's claim u/s 54F is not allowable. Rejecting the various submissions and other details furnished by the assessee, the Assessing Officer rejected the claim of deduction u/s 54F on account of the following grounds :- "a. The assessee applied for approval of construction of house in 28.07.2012. This was two years after the date of permissible time limit. b. The assessee has not obtained any electricity connection till date. In absence of electricity connection the claim of the assessee remains to be established. c. The copies of bills relating to purchase of material and labour contractors remained unverified. d. The valuation report remained verified as the notice issued by this office was returned unserved. e. No evidence to show that investment made in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ot complete in all respects and it was not in a fit condition to be occupied within the period stipulated, that would not disentitle the assessee from availing benefit u/s 54F of the I.T. Act. 12. Referring to the decision of the Hyderabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Pradeep Kumar Chowdhry vs. DCIT vide ITA no.1520/Hyd/2013 order dated 31.12.2014, he submitted that the Tribunal in the said decision has held that section 54F is a beneficial provision and, therefore, has to be interpreted so as to give the benefit of residential unit i.e. flat instead of house in the present state of affairs. It was further held that even if only advance is given the benefit still will be available for exemption u/s 54F of the I.T. Act. 13. Referring to the decision in the case of Seetha Subramanian reported in 55 ITD 94, he submitted that the Tribunal in the said decision has held that the assessee need not complete the construction of the house and occupy the same within the stipulated period. It is sufficient, if the assessee has made substantial investments in the construction of the house. He accordingly submitted that since the assessee in the instant case has constructed the res....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e that substantial amount of the capital gain has been invested by the assessee for construction of the house and merely because house is not habitable the same cannot be a ground to deny the benefit of deduction u/s 54F of the I.T. Act. It is an admitted fact that out of sale proceeds of the property of Rs. 65,00,000/-, the assessee has purchased the plot at Noida for Rs. 67,16,225/- and claimed to have spent an amount of Rs. 8,57,850/- towards construction of the house on this plot before June, 2010. The assessee has also produced the water bills for the period from April, 2008 to June, 2013 which is not in dispute. However, it is an admitted fact that no other bills such as electricity connection and approval from the Noida Development Authority was produced before the Assessing Officer to substantiate that the house was constructed and it became habitable within the stipulated period. The only other corroborative evidence which could have established the construction of the house is by producing the contractor M/s Manya & Bhuwan Infrastructure (P) Ltd. to whom payment of Rs. 2,00,000/- had been paid by Cheque and Rs. 6,57,850/- has been made in cash and M/s Khurshid Ahmed & Ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the contention of the learned Assessing Officer in respect of charging interest u/s 234B of the Act till the date of the passing Reassessment Order consequent to the Order u/s 254 passed by ITAT. Whereas on the facts, provision of Section 234B(4) shall be invoked and consequently the figure of interest originally levied in regular Assessment Order dated 01.12.2010 shall not be increased in Order u/s 254/143(3) of the Act." 20. After hearing both the sides, I find the grievance of the assessee in the impugned ground is levy of interest u/s 234B. It is the submission of the ld. counsel for the assessee that interest u/s 234B should have been levied upto the date of regular assessment order which was passed in December, 2010 whereas the Assessing Officer has calculated the interest u/s 234B upto the date of order passed u/s 254/143(3) of the I.T. Act. According to the ld. counsel for the assessee, the interest u/s 234B should have been at Rs. 1,90,167 as against Rs. 6,54,255/- computed by the Assessing Officer. It is also his submission that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Modi Industries Ltd. Etc. Etc. vs. CIT reported in 216 ITR 759 has defined the term "regular asse....