TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (2) TMI 1999
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....imed by the appellant of Rs. 46,93,353/- and thus thereby confirming the denial of deduction of Rs. 29,13,226/-. The confirmation of the part denial of the deduction made by the AO, being contrary to the provisions of law and facts, the rest amount of deduction also kindly be allowed. 2. The ld. CIT(A) further erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in not considering all the four plots purchased as one single unit, even though the appellant admittedly constructed a new residential house in one place of land, which is contrary to the provision of law and facts. Hence, the appellant be declared as having fulfilled the requisite conditions and the deduction as claimed kindly be allowed in full. 3. The AO erred in la....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....elf, it is clear that the assessee has constructed the house only on Plot No.4. No construction has been made on Plot No. 1,2 and 3. The contention of the appellant that all the four plots constitute a single unit is not acceptable because the assessee himself has not utilized these plots for construction of any common house property. Only Plot No.4, has been utilized for construction of property. All the four plots are separate units. I have gone through the various decisions relied by the appellant. In none of the case, it has been held that if the assessee purchases four plot and the construction is made only at one plot, the deduction u/s 54 shall be allowed in respect of investment made in other 3 plots also. After going through all th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... all the four plots by a boundary wall. The contention of the assessee is that he has not purchased more than one residential units but has purchased four pieces of land of same khasra No. 923 from one seller. It is noted that all the plots are appurtenant to each other and are in continuation. The AO in the assessment order observed that the assessee had constructed one unit of residential house after utilizing the whole land and there is only one boundary wall and only one gate of the entire house. The AO has taken into consideration this fact at page 10 in para 11 (i) of the assessment order as under:- ''(i) After selling one property the assessee purchased one separate adjacent residential house bearing No. 1,2,3, and 4 measuri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....done by the assessee to protect his land only. The AO himself visited the site on 3-07-2014 and clicked a few pictures of the site which are available at page 12 of the assessment order. The AO looking into the above facts and circumstances of the case did not allow deduction claimed by the assessee for the investment in purchase of Plot No. 1, 2 and 3 u/s 54F of the Act. The AO only allowed the deduction as to the investment made by the assessee at Plot No. 4 by observing as under:- ''12. Disallowance of investment made in purchase of separate three plots:- On the basis of the above analysis the deduction claimed by the assessee for the investment to purchase Plot No. 1,2, and 3 is disallowed u/s 54F of the Act and only the invest....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....serving as under:- ''.....In none of the case, it has been held that if the assessee purchases four plot and the construction is made only at one plot, the deduction u/s 54 shall be allowed in respect of investment made in other 3 plots also. After going through all the facts of the case, I am of the considered view that the four plots purchase by the appellant do not constitute a single unit. All the plots are separate units. The assessee has constructed the house only at one plot i.e. Plot No. 4.Therefore, in my view the AO is fully justified in allowing deduction u/s 54F only in respect of investment made in Plot No. 4 (Rs. 7,04,000/-) and the construction carried out on Plot No.4 (Rs. 12,22,000/-). Hence, the deduction computed....