TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (11) TMI 1160
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....22/Chny/2020 are reproduced as under:- "1. The order of the CIT (Appeals) is unfair, unjust and contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. Quantum of Investment in house Property for Computation of Exemption u/s 54F: 2.1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in selectively interpreting only a part of the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of C.Aryama Sundaram Vs, Commissioner of Income Tax 3, Chennai (2018) to arrive at an diametrically opposite conclusion to dismiss the claim of exemption u/s 54F of the IT Act of the appellant. 2.2. The CIT (Appeals) ought to have considered the entire expenditure whether or not bills were available for construction of the property as the bills would not be available for many items purchased from unorganised sector. 3. Application of section 50C without considering the Objection of the Appellant: The Ld. CIT (Appeals) failed to consider the objections of the appellant in adopting deemed sale consideration u/s 50C of the IT Act. 4. The Ld. CIT (Appeals) erred in not considering the fact that guideline value was reduced by 33% by Tamil Nadu Government by G.O Ms.No.49 CT&R (J2) Dep....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on verification of details filed by the assessee a sum of Rs.1,24,70,243/- was supported by bills and vouchers and remaining amount of Rs.1,41,92,934/- was not supported by any evidences. Therefore, out of total expenditure, he has considered a sum of Rs.1,24,70,243/- for the purpose of computing exemption u/s.54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961. He further noted that out of total expenditure of Rs.1,24,70,243/- which is supported by invoices, a sum of Rs.1,08,57,553/- was incurred prior to transfer of impugned original asset i.e., on 03.08.2015. Therefore, he opined that any amount incurred towards construction of building prior to the date of transfer of original asset is not entitled for exemption and thus, recomputed exemption claimed by the assessee, after taking into account deemed sale consideration, as per provisions of section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and has made addition of Rs.2,57,67,594/- to returned income. The relevant findings of the learned Assessing Officer are as under:- "The assessee jointly with one Smt. B.Usha sold 2.99 acres of land at Ayapakkam Village for a slated consideration of Rs. 4,00,00.000/- vide document number 11221/2015 dated 6/8/2015 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or construction residential house from Sundram BNP Paribas Home Finance Limited. As per the copy of property tax assessment dated 3/5/2016 the assessee has constructed 8090 Sq.feet of Built up area with Ground+3 floors. Further as per the details submitted assessee has said to have incurred an expenditure of Rs. 2,30,49,486/-for construction of Building. Out of the said amount assessee could furnish invoices to an extent of Rs. 1,24,70,243/- and tor the remaining amount of Rs. 1,41,92,934/- assessee could not furnish any invoices but it is claimed that the said expenditure is as per the entries in her Ledger. Out of the expenditure of Rs. 1,24,70,243/-which is supported by Invoices Rs. 1,08,57,553/- is incurred prior to transfer of impugned land i.e 3/8/2015 based on the date of invoices. In the absence of conclusive proof to support the expenditure of Rs. 1,41,92,934/- claimed to have been incurred without invoices the expenditure prior to and after the date of transfer of impugned land could not be verified and the same is not reckoned for the purpose of deduction u/s 54F. As per the relevant provisions of sec.54F(1) Subject to the provisions o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or exemption u/s. 54 of the Act. In the case of Smt. Nimmagadda Sridevi Vs. DCIT 2013 58 SOT 54 (Hyd) it was held whatever investment made by the assessee in construction of new property within the period stipulated u/s. 54F after the sale of existing property the assessee is entitled for deduction u/s. 54F of the Act. In other words, the investment in new property made by the assessee is not entitled for deduction u/s. 54F of the Act to the extent made before the sale of property. As per the provisions of sec.54F assessee should have constructed a residential house within a period of three years after date of transfer of original asset. Hence the claim of deduction under see. 54F in respect of expenditure of Rs. 1,24,70,243/- supported by invoices is restricted to Rs.16,12,690/- which is evidenced to have been incurred prior to the date of transfer. In respect of the remaining expenditure incurred before the transfer of impugned land assessee is ineligible for claim of deduction u/s 54F. As discussed above in the absence of conclusive proof to support the expenditure of Rs. 1,41,92,934/- incurred without invoices , the expenditure was incurred prior or after the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ue date specified under the Act. The learned A.R further referring to provisions of section 50C(2) of the Act submitted that when the assessee has filed objection for adopting deemed sale consideration, then the Assessing Officer should refer matter to the DVO and adopt value as determined by the DVO. In this case, the Assessing Officer has referred matter for departmental valuation, but has adopted deemed sale consideration even before DVO completes valuation of property. He further submitted that the learned CIT(A) has erred in restricting exemption claimed u/s.54F of the Act to the extent of amount invested for construction of building, which is supported by bills and also amount spent from date of sale of original asset till completion of construction. The learned AR further referring to provisions of section 54F(1)(b) of the Act, submitted that for the purpose of determining exemption u/s.54F only actual consideration received for transfer of property should be considered, but not deemed consideration fixed for computing capital gains. 7. The learned DR, on the other hand, strongly supporting order of the learned CIT(A) submitted that if you go by provisions of section 54F ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the property, the Assessing Officer has completed assessment by adopting deemed sale consideration as per provisions of section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the Assessing Officer has completely erred in adopting deemed sale consideration, as per provisions of section 50C of the Act, when he himself referred valuation of property to the DVO. 9. As regards, computation of exemption u/s.54F of the Act, the assessee claims to have invested a sum of Rs.2,30,49,486/- for construction of building. Further, construction of new building was commenced prior to the date of sale of original asset i.e., in the year 2013 itself. The construction of building was completed in the year 2016. All these facts are not disputed by the Assessing Officer. The only dispute is with regard to amount invested for construction of new building, date of commencement of construction and amount eligible for exemption u/s.54F of the Act. According to the Assessing Officer, out of a sum of Rs.2,30,49,486/-, a sum of Rs.1,41,92,934/- is not supported by bills and vouchers, therefore, he has rejected exemption claimed u/s.54F of the Act. The balance amount of Rs....