TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (9) TMI 811
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....im of deduction of Rs. 2,36,96,898/- u/s 54F of the I.T.Act,1961 made by assessee despite the fact that the assessee owned more than one residential property at the time of making claim of deduction. Further, Ld. CIT(A) also did not take into the account the fact that the assessee was failed to produce any legal documents relating to establish the ownership of house properties in the name of others as claimed by him during the assessment proceedings. 2. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in ignoring the finding made by the AO which revealed that the credit card expenses of Rs. 32,61,606/-were booked under the heads entertainment, sales promotion and travelling expenses against which the assessee could not produced bills/vouchers.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assessee has already purchased two residential properties and sold one of them. Therefore, the ld AO was of the view that the assessee is not entitled for deduction u/s 54F of the Act. He held that it is not possible to collect the direct evidence to prove that the assessee owned more than one residential house, on the date of transfer of original asset. He further noted that after taking consideration of the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case one could draw the inference that the assessee did not fulfill the conditions for exemption u/s 54F. He even otherwise held that the assessee has purchased a farmhouse and no deduction u/s 54F should be allowed on that, as income from farm is not taxable. 4. The second issue he no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e. He was also of the view that farmhouse is not a residential unit and therefore, deduction u/s 54F is not eligible on a purchase of residential property by the assessee at Sainik Farm, New Delhi. Before the ld AO, the assessee specifically submitted that the assessee has given advances for the purchase of the property to M/s. Real Capital Sky Scrapers Pvt. Ltd, who could not deliver the property and therefore money was returned. However, the ld AO wrongly assuming that advances/ loans given to M/s. Lincoln Developers Pvt. Ltd is for the property. The assessee stated that it has purchased only one property. 8. The ld CIT(A) dealt with the above issue in para No. 5.2 as under:- "5.2 I have perused the facts of the case and the s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cality in Delhi and the AO seems to have mistaken the same with purchase of a Farm. In view of these facts, it is observed that there is no material basis to hold that the appellant does not fulfil the conditions for claim of deduction u/s 54F of the Act. Therefore, the addition made by the AO is deleted and the ground of appeal is allowed." 9. The ld DR could now show that the assessee has more than one property. The ld AO himself says that he could not prove whether the assessee has more than one property. Furthermore, with respect to the objection of the learned assessing officer, that assessee has purchased a farmhouse and therefore it is not a residential house property is also devoid of any merit. Farmhouse can be residential house....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r as under:- "6.2 I have gone through the facts of the case and the submissions made by the appellant. It is observed that the appellant was holding three credit cards. It is contended by the appellant that these cards were being used by him for the business purposes of M/s Makino Auto Industries in which he is working as CEO and all the expenditure incurred through these cards has been duly accounted for in the books of the said concern. The appellant has furnished the completed details of the expenses. It is also noted that the AO has made the addition by stating that the appellant has not produced the bills/vouchers of the expenses incurred and has also held that the appellant has derived personal benefits by the use of these cr....