TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (6) TMI 391
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....inafter) vide order dated 22.01.2016 for Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14. 2. The facts of the case in-so-far as are relevant are that the assessee sold an immovable property, being a plot of land (at Gattha Sohana, Haryana) during the relevant year (on 18.3.2013) for Rs. 63 lacs, claiming exemption u/s. 54F (at Rs. 56,86,491) on the long-term capital gain (LTCG) arising on the said sale. The same stands denied by the Revenue on the ground that the assessee had, on the date of transfer (18.03.2013), more than one residential house, as under, disentitling him for the said claim: (a) a flat at 142, Belvedere Towers, DLF Phase II, Gurgaon; (b) a residential quarter at Bohri (Borari), Mumbai; and (c) a residential hous....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e years, but not for the current year. The wealth-tax return for the current year values the same, accordingly, as an open piece of land (PB pg. 33), demolishing the structure in April, 2012. This fact has been overlooked by the Revenue, relying on the Inspectors' report dated 05/1/2016 which was in fact never confronted to the assessee, despite being requested for. The Revenue's case, on the other hand, is that the assessee had been allowed abundant opportunity; he, in fact, participating in the assessment proceeding, became recalcitrant upon detection of the untruth of his claim, and toward which there is extensive reference in the impugned order, including the remand report dated 30/3/2017. 3. We have heard the parties, and peru....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tial house proper. This though raises a legal issue in-as-much as such a house, with/upon repairs, could be made habitable. The contention of the house being dilapidated also militates against the assessee's claim, again unevidenced - other than the wealth-tax return, of having demolished the said house in April, 2012. There is nothing on record to show that the house was demolished during the current year, which would entail expenditure, and which should be evidenced in the normal course, besides raising the question of the house inhabited by the assessee during the current year; the assessee's only other house being let out. In fact, Sh. Nanda was specifically questioned during hearing on this as well, i.e., the house occupied by the asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e be relied upon. We have already opined that even de hors the said report, relied upon by the Revenue, the assessee cannot be said to have proved his case despite abundant opportunity. It is then said that the report, being dated 05/1/2016, could not be relied upon. We have already clarified that the non-confrontation of the said report would only imply that the same cannot be relied upon by the Revenue. Further, if the report states of an inhabitable structure on the said land in 2016 (as the assessment and the impugned order state), how would it help the assessee's case unless, of course, he shows that the assessee built another structure thereon, which itself would prove the demolition of the previous structure, so that the question tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....occupied house. Further, as afore-noted, how could a house, inhabitable on 31/3/2012, become uninhabitable on 01/4/2012 or the subsequent months? 4. The assessee's case, in light of the factual matrix, is completely unproved. We may, however, in the interest of justice, particularly considering that a false claim invites penalty, remit the matter back to the file of the AO, to allow the assessee an opportunity to state his case. The Revenue, where it wishes to rely on the Inspectors' report, as it does before us, shall have to necessarily provide a copy thereof to the assessee. The burden to prove his claim u/s. 54F, is though on the assessee, as well as to meet the evidence gathered or sought to be relied upon by the Revenue. The rem....