2023 (2) TMI 703

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....se are that the assessee is non-resident and filed his return of income for the assessment year 2015-16 admitting total income of Rs..51,93,980/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS and notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ["Act" in short] dated 20.09.2016 was issued and duly served. Notice under section 142(1) of the Act dated 30.05.2017 was also issued calling for details. In the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has noted that the assessee had sold two immovable properties, one at value of Rs..23,00,000/- and another at Rs..1,91,52,500/-, vide two different sale deeds dated 10.04.2014. Subsequently, the assessee has purchased property at Vepery High Road, Chennai for a total consideration of Rs....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....all partition for office, which was occupied by another leather shop earlier and vacant at present. iii. Third floor is a residential house used by assessee and a caretaker Shri Mohamed Sadique is presently stay here. iv. On fourth floor half of the area is open space and half build-up area and let-out to Shri Sufian since April, 2017. 2.1 After recording the statement from the caretaker of the property, the Assessing Officer has observed that 3rd and 4th floors are two separate residential units, where, 3rd floor was kept for assessee's use and 4th floor was let out. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer has worked out the amount eligible for claiming deduction under section 54 of the Act at Rs..49,45,835/-. However, sinc....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the previous owner and hence was not justified in further restricting the claim of the assessee under section 54 of the Act. It was further submission that the assessee has claimed exemption under section 54 of the Act only for the residential portion of the property to the extent of Rs..78,19,945/- out of a total reinvestment of Rs..2.40 crores and hence further restricting exemption only for the 3rd floor at Rs..33,72,669 is arbitrary and unreasonable. It was further submitted that the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in rejecting he assessee's computation of capital gains and his reworking of LTCG was not correct and prayed for deleting the addition. 4. On the other hand, the ld. DR strongly supported the orders of authorities below. ....