TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (9) TMI 1118
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s and grounds are taken from the folder of Sh. Suchet Singh Yadav HUF in ITA No. 515/JPR/2024 and this case is taken as lead case for deciding the issue raised in these appeals. 2.1 In ITA No. 515/JPR/2024 the assessee has raised following:- "1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law also Ld. Lower authorities grossly erred in not considering order of ld. CIT(A) and order of Honourable ITAT in the case of Suchet Singh Yadav. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law also Ld. Lower authorities grossly erred in taking and confirming cost of acquisition at Rs. 91,200/-. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law also Ld. Lower authorities grossly erred in not giving the deduction u/s 54F ignoring the directions of Ld. CIT(A) in appeal order that the deduction should be granted in the status of HUF after examining the facts & also ignoring the fact that assessee has made investment in the house out of HUF funds & have also claimed the deduction in the computation of income HUF. 4. That the appellant craves his indulgence to add, amend, alter or delete any or all of the ground of appeal at any time before....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y was suffering from medical illness and was advised rest and that resulted delay in filling the present appeal by 79 days. The reasons are supported by the evidence and affidavit filed by the assessee. 3.3. During hearing, the ld. DR objected to assessee's prayer for condonation of delay. But at the same time did not object to the facts so argued by the ld. AR of the assessee. 3.4 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The Bench Noted that the reasons advanced by assessee for condonation of delay of 79 days are sufficient to condone the delay and it has merit based on the affidavit and evidence so placed on record. Thus, we concur with the submission of the assessee and condone the delay of 79 days in filing the appeal by the assessee as the assessee has sufficient cause. We also get support from the decision of the apex court in the case of Collector, Land & Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji& Others 167 ITR 471(SC) wherein it was directed the other courts to consider the liber approach in deciding the petition for condonation as the assessee is not going to achieve any benefit for the delay in fact the assessee is at risk. 4. The brief fa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....see in the computation of income. The Id. AO has mentioned in assessment order that he has taken cost of acquisition as per copy of sale deed obtained from DIG Stamps. 6.4 The learned assessing officer has mentioned in the assessment order that the cost of acquisition has been worked out as per the copy of sale deed obtained from DIG stamps. It is the appellant who has not complied with and responded to various notices during the assessment proceedings as mentioned in the assessment order. The appellant has not substantiated the working of the cost of the purchase of the land at the rate of Rs. 100 p.s.y. claimed by him with the support of documentary evidences. There is no basis to upheld the cost of acquisition worked out by the appellant. This ground of appeal is treated as dismissed in above terms. 8.3 The appellant has made contention that ld. AO also erred in not allowing the deduction u/s 54F as claimed by the assessee in the return of income. Hon'ble CIT(A) & Hon'ble ITAT have also given instruction for the same in their respective orders. It is important in this case to note that initially the assessment was done in the hands of the individual as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to prove the actual amount invested as per section 54F whereas the valuation report gives only the approximation of the valuation of the property and not even the actual dates and periods of the expenditure. Whereas such factors are very crucial for the purposes of section 54F wherein a specific time band is also provided for the period of investment. The appellant has not shown that the investment in the house was done during that period and not before that and not after that. It is a settled legal principle that exemption provisions are to be interpreted strictly and the claimant is required to satisfy the provisions in letter and spirit which the appellant has not done at all. In view of the above discussion, this ground of appeal is dismissed." 6. The assessee aggrieved from the finding so recorded by the ld. CIT(A) has preferred the present appeal on the grounds as stated herein above. To the support the contention raised the ld. AR of the assessee filed the following evidence:- S. No. Particulars Page No. 1. Copy of order of CIT(A) in the case of Sh. Suchet Singh Yadav dated 26.02.2016 for A.Y. 2011-12. 1-32 2. Copy of order of Hon'ble ITA....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....justification for the deviation. Thus, there are contradicting view on the issue and thus, the ld. AR of the assessee prayed the assessee may be given one chance to clarity all the facts before the ld. CIT(A) as there was non submission of the relevant details before the ld. AO and therefore, prayed to give one chance before the ld. AO. 8. The ld. DR is heard who has relied on the findings of the lower authorities and submitted that this is the second round of litigation and if the assessee's request is accepted it would be third round of litigation. The ld. DR also submitted that the when the investment is made by the individual how the deduction be given to the HUF. The ld. DR did not supported the reasons getting the third round by filling the relevant documents. 9. We have considered the rival contentions, perused the material available on record. The bench noted that this is the second round of litigation wherein the finding recorded by the ld. CIT(A) in the case of the assessee with that of the ld. CIT(A) in the case of individual assessee are contradictory. As regards the issue of allowing cost of acquisition and deduction u/s. 54F of the Act the ld. AO did not cons....