2018 (11) TMI 327

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ribunal. The assessee has raised an issue of disallowance of deduction under section 54F under grounds nos. 2 and 2.1. The Tribunal in the impugned order has decided ground no. 2 in para 9 as under :- "9. We have considered the rival submissions as well as the relevant material on record. As per the details of the three properties in which the assessee has claimed to have invested sale consideration of the land in question, only one property i.e. at sl. no. 1 of the list reproduced in para '6' above is a constructed house and two others are only the plots of land. Further, as it is evident from the details that these three properties are situated in different parts of the Jaipur City and are not adjoining to each other. Therefore, ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e and the other two properties were only plots. Further the Authorized Representative placed reliance on a number of judgments but the same are distinguishable because in all those cases the asset purchased was a constructed residential house and the issue was regarding whether two or more units in the same complex could be considered for the deduction. In the assessee's case there is only one constructed house and the other two are plots and that two in different areas, therefore, the deduction has been correctly arrived at by the Assessing Officer. Assessing Officer has placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Pawan Arya vs. CIT 2011-ITOL-01-HCP& T IT. This ground of appeal is dismissed." ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....IT (A) and the ld. CIT (A) has reproduced the details of total cost of acquisition and construction of the house at Rs. 19,77,450/- whereas the AO has allowed the deduction against the investment of Rs. 14,67,670/-. Therefore, the expenditure of Rs. 4,84,000/- claimed to have been incurred on construction of the house, registration charges of Rs. 21,067/- and payment to deed writer of Rs. 4,713/- have not been considered by the AO while allowing the deduction under section 54F. The ld. CIT (A) has also not considered the said expenditure incurred by the assessee on construction, registration charges and payment to deed writer. Hence, it was pleaded that the ground no. 2.1 of the assessee's appeal may be adjudicated. 3. On the other hand,....