2018 (6) TMI 1856

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....vt. Ltd. had filed her return for the impugned assessment year disclosing income of Rs. 3,72,220/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was noted by the ld. Assessing Officer that assessee had claimed deduction u/s. 54F of the Act on capital gains arising out of the sale of a property. Ld. Assessing Officer, required the assessee to furnish details regarding the reinvestment on which deduction u/s. 54F of the Act was claimed. Thereupon, it was mentioned by the assessee that such claim was made on an additional construction done to an existing building. Assessee also filed a corporation tax receipt as proof for the additional construction. Additional construction was done in premises No. 1002, New No. 98, I- Block, 6th Avenu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ng unit. (ii) Construction of first floor was only an extension of existing residential property. (iii) Property tax receipt clearly indicated that there was only an increase in area and no new separate unit came into existence. (iv) Inspection report of Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewage Board produced by the assessee did not have a signature or official seal. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) after going through the remand report of the ld. Assessing Officer held that assessee had done only an extension of existing residential house and this did not tantamount to purchase of a new asset as required u/s. 54F(1) of the Act. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) thus confirmed the order of the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he existing building and there was no new dwelling unit or residential house. On a question from the Bench, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that there was separate staircase for the construction done in the first floor. Letter dated 12.03.2012 issued by Area Engineer, VIII, CMWSS Board to the assessee is reproduced hereunder:- Lr. No. CMWSSB/Area VIII/Depot 95/un paid amount/2012 Dated 12.3.2012 Sir, Sub: CMWSSB- Area VIII- Depot 95- Premises No. 1022 Street Name 6th Avenue, CMC No. 05/064/6197100. Notice for payment due to CMWSSB Board - Reg. Ref: Site inspection by Depot Engineer 95 on 12.03.2012. 1. On inspection of your premises it is noticed that (a) You have put up additiona....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....onstructed by the assessee in the first floor was an independent dwelling unit. We also find that there were separate EB meters for the two units and EB cards evidencing this has been placed at paper book page 9 to 12. Assessee had also placed on record photos of separate EB meters. In such circumstances, we are of the opinion that assessee's case that it had constructed new residential house in the upper floor of its existing residence is on a strong wicket. 8. Coming to the judgment of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of V. Pradeep Kumar (supra), their lordships held that burden was on the assessee to prove construction of a new residential house. In the said case, there was no tangible material to form a belief th....