TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (12) TMI 1203
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in law, is liable to be deleted. 2.1 The learned CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that the said property was under dispute and was occupied by the tenants who were not willing to vacate the premises. In these circumstances, the market value of the property was lower than the stamp duty guideline value. The addition made u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) is bad in law and is liable to be deleted. 2.2 The learned CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that assessee had objected to the assessing officer adopting the guideline value of the property for stamp duty purposes in place of the purchase consideration specified in the sale deed, the assessing officer ought to have referred the property for valuation to the valuation officer of the Income Tax Department. The assessing officer having failed to refer the property for valuation to the valuation officer of the Income Tax Department the addition made u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) is bad in law and is liable to be deleted. 2.3 The learned CIT(A) has erred in not following the judicial precedents where in it is held that should an assessee challenge or object to the assessing officer adopting the guideline value of the property for s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iable to be quashed. 3.2 The learned Income Tax Officer, Ward 7(2)(1), Bangalore and the CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that the residential property which was purchased on 4.9.2014 was owned by 4 co-owners. All the 4 co-owners had jointly executed a single sale deed in the appellant's favour. The appellant having satisfied all the conditions provided under section 54F, the exemption of Rs. 2,00,23,125 is to be allowed. 3.3 The learned CIT(A) Bangalore has erred in concluding that the appellant has invested in four new houses and therefore is not eligible for deduction u/s 54F of the Act. The impugned conclusion that the appellant has invested in four new houses and therefore is not eligible for deduction u/s 54F have been made without any basis or evidence and is therefore bad in law and liable to be quashed. 4. Assuming without admitting that the appellant had purchased 4 new houses as held by the learned assessing officer and CIT(A), the appellant is still eligible for exemption u/s 54F. Section 54F requiring the purchase or construction of one residential house in India was introduced with effect from AY 2015-16. For the AY 2014-15, the appellan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....feet for a consideration of Rs. 1,00,00,000. For the purposes of stamp duty the Sub- Registrar valued the property at Rs. 1,76,47,000. The stamp duty was accordingly paid. The actual sale consideration of the property was lower than the sub-registrar guideline value. According to the assessee, the primary reason for this was that the above said property was under dispute at the time of purchase. There were atleast 4 tenants occupying the said property who were not willing to vacate. Litigation petition vide F.D.P No. 100/2008 O.S. No. 784/2001, CCIL No. 39 dated 16/02/2008 was filed by Smt. Rathnamma on behalf of the seller Sri. B. Murudappa before City Civil Court, Bangalore to vacate the property. As the property was under litigation, the seller could not find any appropriate buyer. The assessee's business premises is adjacent to the said litigated property. The assessee was given an offer by the seller to buy the said property in its existing condition. The assessee accepted the offer of the seller to purchase the property and also bear the settlement cost payable to the litigants/tenants in order to get the vacant possession. Subsequently in order to get the clear title and pos....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... full value of consideration as held in Sarwan Kumar v ITO (2014) 150 ITD 289 (Delhi)(Trib). 7. From a reading of the provisions of section 50C(2), it is clearly mandated that should an assessee challenge or object to the Assessing Officer adopting the guideline value of the property for stamp duty purposes in place of the stated consideration in the sale deed for the purposes of computing LTCG, then the Assessing Officer ought to refer the property for valuation to the Valuation Officer of the Income Tax Department. [T.V. Nagasena v ITO (2012) 24 taxmann.com 30 (Bang)]. According to the ld. AR, this case law will apply to the facts of the case since the wordings of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act are also similar to section 50C of the I.T. Act. 8. It was submitted that the Delhi Tribunal in ITO v Aditya Narain Verma HUF ITA NO. 4166/Del/2013 dated 07-06-2017 has held that failure by the AO to refer the valuation of the capital asset to a valuation officer instead of adopting the value taken by the stamp duty authorities is a fatal error and the assessment order has to be annulled. The matter cannot be set aside to the AO for a second chance. The power of the ITAT to set aside....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... officer should have referred the property for valuation officer. For this the assessee relied on few case laws. 14. i. Dispute over the property: The ld. DR submitted that to invoke section 56(2) (vii) (b) the fact that the property was under dispute is not a hurdle. The compensation paid to the tenant was subsequent to the purchase of property. At the most, it can be considered as improvement cost and not as cost of purchase. Hence the action of the AO to bring the differential amount between purchase value and stamp duty value is to be upheld. 15. Without prejudice to the above it is submitted that the assessee had paid only Rs. 4,00,000 as settlement amount to the tenant as stated in the page no 76 to 81 of PB1. With expenditure of Rs. 4,00,000 the assessee had obtained benefit of Rs. 72,47,000. It needs to be treated as income from other sources. Envisaging these entire situation, the legislature brought the above section. The differential amount between the stamp duty value and the purchase consideration paid is akin to gift received from third party. Hence it is treated as taxable in the hands of purchaser under the Act. Hence there is no force in the argument of the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... vide F.D.P No. 100/2008 O.S. No. 784/2001, CCIL No. 39 dated 16/02/2008 in order to get the property vacated. The AO overlooked these contentions of the assessee and straightaway considered the value declared in the sale deed for stamp duty at Rs. 1,76,47,000 and the excess of Rs. 76,47,000 was taxed u/s. 56(2)(vii) of the Act in the hands of the assessee as well as his spouse, Smt. Rathna. As seen from the records, the assessee filed valuation report from the registered valuer before the AO and disputed the stamp duty value of the property. However, the AO adopted the stamp duty value as deemed consideration applying the provisions of section 56(2)(vii) of the Act and the difference between the stamp duty value and actual sale consideration paid by the assessee was brought to tax. The assessee all along disputed the valuation of property adopted by the AO on the reason that the said property was subject to litigation as the property was occupied by Smt. Rathnamma and for vacating the property litigation is pending before the court. If the AO disputed the valuation of property made by the registered valuer, he could have very well referred the matter to the DVO to value the same f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the stamp valuation authority. Further, during the appellate proceedings, he assessee had filed sale instances of two comparable cases in the nearby area which were forwarded by the ld. CIT(A) to the Assessing Officer and the Assessing Officer at that time also did not refer the matter to the DVO. Therefore, the order of the ld. CIT(A) being in accordance with law should be upheld. 16. We find merit in the above argument of the ld. counsel for the assessee. It is an admitted fact that during the course of assessment proceedings the assessee had filed a valuation report of Captain Suresh Dutt & Associates, Government of India approved and registered valuers, who valued the property at Rs. 75,40,000/- vide their report dated 07.06.2013, copy of which is placed at pages 33 to 37 of the Paper Book. It is also an admitted fact that the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings had filed the representations made by the Narela Industrial Complex Welfare Association to the then Chief Minister of Delhi dated 09.12.2010 and another on 30.01.2014, copies of which are placed at pages 29 to 32 of the Paper Book. However, it is strange to note that there is not a whisper in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iled by the AR of assessee during the course of assessment proceedings, but the Assessing Officer had not considered the same. Now at the remand report stage the AR of assessee filed copies of two sale deed i.e. dated 13-7-2013 and 8-11-2015 of the same locality and area of the property. These new evidences were not produced before the AO during the assessment proceedings where the properties were sold well below the Circle Rates. The AR argued that due to slump in the property market, the properties in the Narela Industrial area are being sold well below the Circle rates. The documentary evidences now furnished by the AR of assessee is placed on records. In view of above narrated submissions and the facts of the case, it is requested that the appeal of the assessee may please be adjudicated on the merits of the case. 17. So far as the reliance placed on by the Revenue on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Jansampark Advertising and Marketing (P) Ltd. (supra) is concerned, the same, in our opinion, is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In that case the assessment was reopened on the basis of the report of the Investigatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ry satisfaction that some part of the income has escaped assessment, particularly when some unexplained credit entries have come to the notice (as in Section 68), cannot conclude, save and except by reaching satisfaction on the touchstone of the three tests mentioned earlier; viz. the identity of the third party making the payment, its creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction. Whilst it is true that the assessee cannot be called upon to adduce conclusive proof on all these three questions, it is nonetheless legitimate expectation of the process that he would bring in some proof so as to discharge the initial burden placed on him. Since Section 68 itself declares that the credited sum would have to be included in the income of the assessee in the absence of explanation, or in the event of explanation being not satisfactory, it naturally follows that the material submitted by the assessee with his explanation must itself be wholesome or not untrue. It is only when the explanation and the material offered by the assessee at this stage passes this muster that the initial onus placed on him would shift leaving it to the AO to start inquiring into the affairs of the third part....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t in the case of Jansampark Advertising and Marketing Ltd. (supra) as relied on by the Revenue in the grounds of appeal will not be applicable to the facts of the present case. 19. We find identical issue had come up before the Tribunal in the case of Aditya Narain Verma (HUF) (supra). In the said decision also, the Department had requested the Tribunal for setting aside the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for referring the case to the valuation officer. However, the Tribunal after considering the various submissions made by the assessee rejected such request of the Revenue and upheld the order of the ld. CIT(A) by observing as under :- "4.1 On the very perusal of the provisions laid down under section 50C of the Act reproduced hereinabove. we fully concur with the finding of the Id. CIT (Appeals) that when the assessee in the present case had claimed before Assessing Officer that the value adopted or assessed by the stamp valuation authority under sub section (1) exceeds the fair market value of the property as on the date of transfer, the Assessing Officer should have referred the valuation of the capital asset to a valuation officer instead of adopt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r the matter to the DVO u/s. 56(2)(vii) of the Act which is totally misconceived. In such circumstances, in our opinion, the addition made by the AO is totally unjustified and cannot be sustained. We are also of the opinion that the revenue cannot be allowed a second innings by sending the matter back to the AO to refer the matter to the DVO to ascertain the correct fair market value of the property purchased by the assessee, when assessee all along disputed the valuation of property adopted by the AO for the purpose of registration of the same and the AO failed to find out the correct value of the property both at the assessment stage as well as at the first appellate stage. 24. This was considered by the Agra Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Hari Om Garg in ITA No.342/Agra/2017 dated 31.5.2019 wherein a view was taken that the Department cannot be allowed a second inning by sending the matter back to the Assessing Officer enabling the revenue to fill the lacunae and shortcomings and further putting the assessee to face a re-trail for no fault of him and to prove before the Assessing Officer that the sale consideration was the fair market value of the property purchased by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t to DVO in accordance with Section 55-A of the Act. In all these events, the AO has to record valid reasons, which are justifiable in law. He is not required to adopt an evasive approach of applying deeming provision without deciding the objection or to refer the matter to the DVO under section 55-A of the Act as a matter of course, without considering the report of approved valuer submitted by the assessee. The Hon'ble High Court further held that Section 50-C of the Act is a rule of evidence in assessing the valuation of property for calculating the capital gain. The deeming provision under section 50 C (1) of the Act is rebuttable. It is well known that an immovable property may have various attributes, charges, encumbrances, limitations and conditions. The Stamp Valuation Authority does not take into consideration the attributes of the property for determining the fair market value in the condition the property is a offered for sale and is purchased. He is required to value the property in accordance with the circle rates fixed by the Collector. The object of the valuation by the Stamp Valuation Authority is to secure revenue on such sale and not to determine the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e trouble of facing a virtual trial even after five years of appearing before AO/DVO at this stage to prove the sale price declared by her is reasonable." 16. In the case of ACIT v. Anima Investment Ltd [73 ITD 0125] Third Member, ITAT, Delhi observed in para 13 of the order as under: "The powers of the Tribunal in the matter of setting aside an assessment are large and wide, but these cannot be exercised to allow the AO an opportunity to patch up the weak part of his case and to fill up the omission. In my opinion, a party guilty of remissness and gross negligence is not entitled to indulgence being shown. In this context, I would like to make a reference to a decision of the Chennai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Tatia Skyline & Health Farms Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2000] 66 TTJ (Chennai) 203 : [1999] 70 ITD 387 (Chennai). In this decision, on the assessee's request that the case be sent back to the AO for another round of enquiry and fresh assessment in accordance with law. the Bench, rejecting the assessee's request has held that the remand order should be made in very rare and exceptional case, for example, if at original stage, patently grave error ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... stipulated under the IT Act, the Tribunal is not one of them. It is purely an appellate authority. Therefore, the object of the appeal before the Tribunal is whether the addition or disallowance sustained was in accordance with law and supported by material. If there is no sufficient material, the addition must be deleted. The Tribunal cannot order further enquiry with a view to sustain the addition. This will amount to taking sides with the parties which is not the function of a judicial authority like the Tribunal." 18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also in the case of 'Parusram Pottery Works Co. Ltd. v. ITO', 106 ITR 0001 (SC)] observed as follows - It has been said that the taxes are the price that we pay for civilization. If so, it is essential that those who are entrusted with the task of calculating and realising that price should familiarise themselves with the relevant provisions and become well versed with the law on the subject. Any remissness on their part can only be at the cost of the national exchequer and must necessarily result in loss of revenue. At the same time, we have to bear in mind that the policy of law is that there must be a poi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... dispute is also supported by the decision of Mumbai Bench of Tribunal in the case of Mohd. Illyas & Sons, 186 ITD 407 (Mum) wherein it was held that when the AO mechanically applied the provisions of section 56(2)(vii) to make addition of the difference between stamp duty value and actual sale consideration paid by the assessee without making any efforts to find out the actual cost of the property, the addition had to be deleted. The relevant observations of the Tribunal are as under:- "27. In the case before us also the Assessing Officer completely ignored the valuation report of the Government Registered valuer submitted by the assessee and the submissions thereon. The Assessing Officer mechanically applied provisions of section 56(2) of the Act to bring the difference between the stamp duty value and the actual sale consideration paid by the assessee without making any efforts to find out the actual cost of the property when in fact the assessee stated that the property when purchased was under semi construction stage and there were disputes between builders and the purchasers and ultimately the builder was abandoned the project and left. The assessee also stated that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... this stage. The assessee is at liberty to agitate all these grounds at an appropriate stage." 26. Accordingly, we delete the addition made by the AO u/s. 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. This ground of the assessee is allowed. 27. The next ground is with regard to non-granting of deduction u/s. 54F of the Act. The AO has not allowed the exemption of Rs. 2,00,23,125 claimed under section 54F for the reason that on the date of transfer of immovable property the assessee owned two residential properties, one at Jayanagar and other at Basavanagudi as on 01.04.2013. The residential property situated at Jayanagar was gifted by the assessee to his daughter Ms. Rashmi vide registered gift deed executed on 25.07.2013. 28. The assessee along with his wife Smt. Rathna jointly owned a commercial property bearing No. 645, V Block, 11th Main Road, Jayanagar, Bangalore. The said commercial property was sold on 24.08.2013 in favour of Ms. Antrix Techinfo Pvt Ltd for a consideration of Rs. 7,10,00,000. The sale was done after the residential property was gifted to assessee. The assessee's share of sale consideration was Rs. 3,55,00,000. The assessee's share of indexed cost of acquisition and ind....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 54F of the Act, the assessee was not owning more than one residential house as on the date of date of transfer of the original asset. This fact is also admitted by the Assessing officer in the remand report filed. 31. To secure exemption under section 54F, the assessee on 04.09.2014 purchased a residential property situated at S. Kariyappa Road, 7th Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore for a consideration of Rs. 3,58,82,500 from 4 co-owners. Copy of the purchase deed of the new asset is at Pages 238 to 259 of the paperbook filed. The assessee purchased the said residential property within the due date of filing the return of income u/s 139(1). The assessee having satisfied all the conditions provided under section 54F claimed exemption of long term capital gains to the extent of Rs. 2,00,23,125. In the income tax return filed, the assessee had inadvertently selected the exemption section as 54 instead of 54F. 32. The ld. AR submitted that the AO in the remand report has stated that as the assessee had purchased 4 properties from 4 different persons, therefore deduction u/s 54F of the Act is not to be allowed. The CIT(A) in para 5.10 of the appellate order denied the deduction claimed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion, the vendors have applied for bifurcation and transfer of khata in respective vendor's name vide application dated 13/12/93. The copy of application and English translation thereof is filed. On discussion with the property vendor it was informed that the property was constructed prior to 1990-91 and hence the plan copy is not available. The on 20/10/2021 filed the copy of Khata Extract and Khata Certificate in each vendors name (copies available at Page no. 387 to 394 of PB). The ld. AR submitted that it is clear from the khata extract that all these properties are situated at the same premises and also having continuous survey numbers i.e., 12/1 to 12/4. 36. It was further submitted that after purchasing the property from above vendors, the assessee once again got the khata merged. Copy of khata merger certificate in kannada language and khata extract in the name of the assessee is available at pages 267 and 268 of the Paper book. It is clear from the khata extract that the khata has been transferred in the name of the assessee and the properties have been merged to survey no. 12/1. Thus the assessee proved beyond doubt that the property purchased from 4 vendors is situate....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sidential properties and one is vacant land. Hence the AO had stated that the assessee is not eligible for deduction u/s 54F. 42. In this regard the assessee stated that four co-owners sold the property as single residential property through a single sale deed. With effect from 1.102.2014 i.e., after the date of purchase the Khata has been merged and made as single. In this regard the following needs to be noted:- i. The house properties purchased bear different Property Identification (PID) nos. as evident from page 242 of PB I. Hence, they are four different houses/properties and not single house/unit. The relevant portion is reproduced below: "'WHEREAS, the Vendors are the absolute owners in possession and enjoyment of the immovable properties bearing New PID Nos.59-111-12/1, 59- 111-12/2, 59-111-12/4 and 59-111-12/3 (old Nos.258:12:01, 258:12:02, 258:12:04 and 258:12.*03) respectively of VENDORS, situated at S Kariyappa Road, (Old Kanakapura Main Road). 7."' Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore - 560 070, which are more fully described in the schedule hereunder and hereinafter referred to as "Schedule of Properties Item .Vos.2,2,3 & 4". ii. This pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....PID No.59-111-12/3 having a vacant site." vii. Though the assessee had claimed to have purchased all scheduled properties through single deed the sale consideration was fixed separately for each of the scheduled properties and was paid to the respective owners separately (page 246 of PB 1). First Vendor sold for - Rs. 1,46,68,750 Second Vendor sold for - Rs. 83,37,500 Third Vendor sold for - Rs. 53,38,750 Fourth Vendor sold for - Rs. 75,37,500 (Vacant Site) 43. The ld. DR further submitted that the investment in vacant site is not eligible for deduction u/s 54F. They are different properties as each property is mentioned as belonging to different separate individuals. As evident from the Schedule of the properties mentioned below: "SCHEDULE OF THE PROPERTIES ITEM No.1: Property belonging to Smt. D.P. Saroja and Sri. A.P. Varadaraj All that piece and parcel of the residential property bearing New PlD No.59-111-12/1 (Old-No 258:12:01), situated at S. Kariyappa Road, (previously Kanakapura Road), 7th Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore, with boundaries as under East by: Old.No.245 site West by: Pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Sandhya All that piece and parcel of the property being Vacant Site bearing New PID No. 59¬111-12/3, (Old No. 258:12:03), situated at S. Kariayappa Road, (previously Kanakapura Road), 7 Block, Jayanagar with boundaries as under East by : Property of Smt. A.P. Gayathri West by : Property of Smt. A.P. Bharathi North by : Property bearing old No.259 with 9' common passage South by : Property of Smt. D.P. Sujatha and her children The vacant site has the following dimensions: East to West :30ft North to South: 33 ½ ft (Area: 735+270=1005 Sq.ft (including 9ft. x 30 ft common passage) The Schedule of Properties measuring East to West 130 Ft and North to South 33 ½ ft. totally measuring 4355 Sq.ft. 44. The buildings were constructed at different point of time and construction was never done in one of the properties as listed below:- a. New PID No.59-111-12/1 having 10 squares ground floor house was built in 1963-64. b. New PID No.59-111-12/2 having a duplex house of 10 squares was built in 1995-96 c. New PID No.59-111-12/4 having 3 squares ground f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the Act. The assessee purchased this property vide Sale Deed dated 4.9.2014, the schedule of the properties are listed in the preceding paragraph. 49. According to the ld. DR, it consists of 4 independent and distinct properties, as such assessee is not entitled for deduction as the assessee is required to invest in one residential house and he has invested in 4 residential houses. 50. We have gone through the said Sale Deed copy dated 4.9.2014 as per which the Vendors are the absolute owners in possession. The relevant portion of the Sale Deed is extracted below:- 51. Thus, this property was vested on these four persons vide partition dated 16.8.1991. Originally there was one katha for all these properties and on account of partition, this property was shared between 4 persons. However, this property has been purchased by the assessee by a single Sale Deed as a single property and this property owned by 4 persons cannot constitute distinct and separate properties so as to deny deduction u/s. 54F. For the purpose of convenience on earlier occasion Katha of these properties was in the name of 4 individuals, later after purchasing the above properties the assessee once aga....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... holding that claim of assessee u/s 54F of the I.T.Act for all five flats could not be admitted. However, the CIT(A) took the view that the assessee would be entitled to benefit of section 54F of the I.T.Act in respect of one single flat with largest area. In appeal, tribunal held that assessee was eligible for exemption u/s 54F on all five flats received by her in lieu of land she had parted with. It was held by the Tribunal that the word 'a' appearing in section 54F of the I.T.Act should not be construed in singular, but should be understood in plural. The Madras High Court upheld the order of the Tribunal. It was also held that amendment was made to s 54F of the I.T.Act with regard to word 'a' by Finance (No.2) Act, 2014 w.e.f only from 01.04.2015 withdrawing deduction for more than one flat (residential house). Post amendment, viz., from 01.04.2015, benefit of s 54F will be applicable to one residential house in India. However, prior to said amendment, a residential house would include multiple flats/residential units. Similar decisions were rendered by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs Gumanmal Jain reported in 394 ITR 666 (Mad.) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e single piece of property bearing Sy.No.47/8 (Eastern Portion), Doddabommasandra, Chamundeshwari Layout, Vidyaranyapura, Yelahanka Hobli. The area of land is East to West 25ft, North to South 93ft, totally 2,325 sq.ft. The assessee constructed residential building consisting of the following: "The building is having Ground, First & Second Floor. Ground floor consists of a parking area with 2 BHK of 2 units. First floor consists of a 2BHK of 3 units. Second floor consists of a 1BHK of 5 units. All the units are Rented out except first floor is fully occupied by the owner." 11. According to the DR, there are multiple residential units w.e.f. 01.04.2015, the assessee is entitled for deduction to the extent of value of only one residential unit. The claim of the assessee is that the assessee invested in single residential unit and is eligible for deduction under section 54F of the Act on the entire value of the building and relied on judgment on judicial High Court in the case of K. G. Rukminiamma 331 ITR 211 wherein it was held that the phrase "a" residential house would mean "one" residential house is not correct. The expression "a" residential house should be understood in a sense ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... We are therefore of the opinion that the assessee in principle, is entitled for deduction under section 54F in respect of investment made in impugned property subject to production of other relevant evidence by the assessee before the A.O. In the present case, the assessee has not filed relevant evidences for incurring the cost on new residential house before the A.O. Hence, we inclined to restore the issue to the file of A.O. for quantification purpose the deduction u/s 54F of the Act. The assessee is directed to produce all relevant evidences in support of the claim of deduction u/s 54F of the Act." 53. Being so, the assessee cannot be denied deduction u/s. 54F on the reason that the assessee purchased 4 properties instead of one. 54. Further, the ld. DR's objection is that though assessee gifted the property to his daughter on 25.7.2013, the property is still shown in the balance sheet of the assessee as on 31.3.2014. The assessee explained that it is the bona fide mistake by the assessee's CA and the assessee is not well educated on these matters and hence the bona fide mistake committed by the auditor is to be condoned. Admittedly, there is a valid gift deed dated 25.7.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... IN FAVOUR OF: Sri. SANJEEVA RAO S/o. Late K. Rama Rao, Aged about 68 Years, Residing at No.465, 9th Cross, 1st Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore - 560 011. PAN AANPR9203K Hereinafter she will be referred to as the 'PURCHASER' (which expression shall unless inconsistent with the context mean and include his heirs, successors, legal representatives, executors, assigns, etc.,) of the Other Part; WHEREAS, the Vendors are the absolute owners in possession and enjoyment of the immovable properties bearing New PID Nos.59-111-12/1, 59-111-12/2, 59-111-12/4 and 59-111-12/3 (Old Nos 258:12:01, 258:12:02, 258:12:04 and 258:12:03) respectively of VENDORS, situated at S. Kariyappa Road, (Old Kanakapura Main Road), 7th Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore-560 070, which are morefully described in the schedule hereunder and hereinafter referred to as the "Schedule of Properties Item Nos. 1, 2, 3 & 4". These properties have been acquired by. the Vendors under a registered Partition Deed dt. 16:08.1991. between the wife, children and grand children of Late. Sri. D.K. Pillanna." WHEREAS originally the site measuring East to W....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....chedule of the Properties Item No.1, 2, 3 & 4 respectively and mutated their names. The BBMP issued separate Khata Certificates to each of the VENDORS herein. Presently, for the portion fallen to the share of the FIRST VENDOR namely, Smt. D.P. Saroja & Sri. A.P. Varadaraj, the BBMP assigned New PID No.59- 111-12/1 and which is having 10 squares ground floor house (built in 1963- 64). For the portion fallen to the share of the SECOND VENDOR namely, Smt. A.P. Gayathri, the BBMP assigned New PID No.59-111-12/2 having a duplex house. of 10 squares (built in 1995-96). For the portion fallen to the share of the THIRD VENDOR namely, Smt. A.P. Bharathi, the BBMP assigned New PID No.59-111-12/4 having 3 squares ground floor building (built in 1995-96). For the portion fallen to the share of the FOURTH VENDOR namely, Smt. A.P. Sandhya, the BBMP assigned New PID No.59- 111-12/3 having a vacant site. WHEREAS, the VENDORS, being the absolute owners in possession and enjoyment of the Schedule of Properties Item Nos. 1, 2, 3 & 4 they are having absolute right, title and interest in and over the Schedule of Properties Item Nos. 1, 2, 3 & 4, due to....