TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (3) TMI 37
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nds of appeal: "1. The order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to law erroneous and unsustainable on the facts of the case. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the denial of claim u/s 54 on the ground that both construction of residential house at Nelambur village, Thirukalukundram, Kanchipurram District and the claim u/s 54 are bogus. 3. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the documents attached as annexure to the assessment order, like, copy of construction agreement, quantities of civil works, cash vouchers issued by Mr.K.M.Rajan - contractor, etc. perse, indicated construction and denial of claim u/s 54 was unsustainable in law as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e. Therefore, proceedings u/s. 144 was issued to assess the income of the assessee by best judgment assessment. As per assessment record, it was noticed that during the financial year relevant to assessment year 2014-15, the assessee had sold a residential flat on 17.04.2013 for a consideration of Rs. 2.90 crores and computed long term capital gains. The assessee had also claimed deduction u/s. 54 of the Act, for Rs. 2,26,69,255/-. The AO, called upon the assessee to file necessary details of computation of long term capital gains and claim of deduction u/s. 54 of the Act. In response, the assessee submitted that she had entered into an agreement for purchase of flat at Vasanthi Avante in Bangalore and paid advance of Rs. 20 lakhs. There wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....jan and various evidences for incurring expenditure for construction of building. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, further submitted that although, the assessee has filed various evidences, but the AO and the CIT(A) rejected arguments of the assessee only on the wrong assumption that the assessee has made a bogus claim of deduction u/s. 54 of the Act for construction of residential house at Nirambur Village, Thirukazhukundram Taluk, Kancheepuram District, on the basis of inspector report which was obtained during the course of assessment proceedings after more than three years from the date of construction of house property. He further submitted that although, the AO has referred valuation of building to the DVO, but the DVO did not submit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....levant to assessment year 2014-15 and computed long term capital gain of Rs. 2,26,69,255/-. The assessee has claimed deduction u/s. 54 of the Act for Rs. 2,26,69,255/- and claimed that she had entered into an agreement with the builder for purchase of flat at K.R. Puram Hobli, Bangalore and also paid Rs. 20 lakhs advance. The assessee could not file necessary evidence in respect of purchase of flats at Bangalore and when the AO questioned, she replied that because of difference with builders, the transfer could not be completed and thus, she had constructed a new residential house property at Nirambur Village, Thirukazhukundram Taluk, Kancheepuram District. The AO disregarded claim of the assessee on various grounds including non-availabili....