TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (12) TMI 555
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s found that the cost of acquisition of the land was worked out by the assessee @ Rs.70/- per sq. mtr. as on 01.04.1981 on the basis of report of the approved valuer. The AO rejected the report of the valuer and worked out the cost of the property as on 01.04.1981 @ 6.20 per sq. mtr. Further, the assessee had claimed deduction of Rs.2.51 Crore under Section 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') in respect of residential house purchased during the year. It was found by the AO that the actual construction on the purchased land was confined to the area of 27 sq. mtr. only on total land area of 840.70 sq. mtr. The AO, therefore, held that the assessee had purchased land and not a residential house. According to the AO, in order to make construction on area of 27 sq. mtr., land of 60 sq. mtr. only was required as per the approved municipal byelaws. Accordingly, the AO restricted the deduction u/s.54F of the Act in respect of land area of 60 sq. mtrs. only and the proportionate value of remaining 780 sq.mtrs. of land amounting to Rs.2,33,07,140/- was not considered as eligible for deduction u/s.54F of the Act. After taking into account the cost of the land as adopted by th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s and evidences of earning the agriculture income clearly brought on record. The order of CIT(A) NFAC should be set aside and impugned addition by AO may please be ordered to be deleted. 5. The learned CIT(A) NFAC has erred in denying opportunity of being heard through videoconferencing, therefore, the order is issued without following prescribed by CBDT, therefore, may please be set aside." 5. The first ground taken by the assessee is against the adoption of cost of acquisition of the property sold by the assessee during the year. Shri Rajendera K. Shah, the Ld. AR appearing for the assessee explained that the agricultural land sold by the assessee was ancestral land and the assessee had filed a report from the approved valuer in respect of the cost of the property as on 01.04.1981. He explained that the valuer had worked out the value of land by four alternate methods as per which the value of land varied between Rs.76/- per sq.mtr. to Rs.366/- per sq.mtr. The assessee had adopted the cost of the land on a conservative basis @ Rs.70/- per sq.mtr. only. The Ld. AR contended that in view of the four alternate methods adopted by the approved valuer and the value of the p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d be confronted to the assessee and the objection, if any, of the assessee in this respect should also be taken into account, before arriving at the correct value of the property as on 01.04.1981. The ground taken by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 8. The next two grounds pertain to restriction of deduction u/s.54F of the Act as claimed by the assessee. The assessee had claimed deduction of Rs.2.51 Crore u/s.54F of the Act in respect of purchase of residential house. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee had purchased a house with construction area of 27 sq.mtr. on total land area of 840.70 sq.mtr., in respect of which this deduction was claimed. In this regard, he had drawn our attention to the copy of agreement dated 26th July, 2017 and the sale deed dated 09th May, 2018 filed in the paper-book. The Ld. AR explained that the construction plan of the property was approved by Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and the payment for purchase of this property was made on 26th July, 2017. The Ld. AR contended that the assessee had purchased a residential house and merely because the house was located on a small portion of the total land area, this cannot be a ground t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....duction u/s.54F of the Act has been claimed. 11. As per the provision of Section 54F of the Act, the deduction is allowable on purchase of residential house. The sale deed dated 09th May, 2018, through which this property was purchased by the assessee, doesn't refer to purchase of any residential house. The property as described in the Annexure of the sale deed is found to be as under: "The property of land of subplot No. 8 (subplot no. 3 as per approved plans) located in 'Abhipushpa Society Part-2' having total area of approximately 2011 sq. yard. i.e., 1681.39 sq. mtr. with construction of residential purpose therein, the complete description of which is given in the Annexure below, out of which the land towards the northern 1/2 of the land j.e.. 1005.50 sq. yard i.e., 840.70 sq. mtr. of land with approximately 27 sq.mtr. of construction of residential purpose situated on non-agriculture lands of residential purpose bearing Final Plot No. 89/2, 90 etc. of Town Planning Scheme No. 37 of Revenue Survey No. 415, 416/1+2 and 435 p are located at the vicinity of Mouje village Thaltej of taluka Ghatlodiya of Sub- district Ahmedabad-9 (Bopal) of Registration District....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... case of Shri M. A. Patel (supra) is also found to be misplaced. In that case, 4 built up residential houses were in existence on land area of 19.06 acres. In the present case, however, there is no built up residential house on the land purchased by the assessee. Further, no evidence of house tax payment by the seller has been brought on record. Since, the assessee has failed to establish that it had purchased any residential house, the deduction u/s.54F of the Act was rightly denied by the AO. In fact, the AO had been generous in considering the open structure area as fit for residence and allowed proportionate deduction u/s.54F of the Act. The ground of the assessee that 780 sq. mtrs. of land for which deduction u/s.54F of the Act was disallowed was land appurtenant to the house cannot be accepted as the existence of any house on the said land has not been established. The disallowance as made by the AO in respect of deduction u/s 54F claimed by the assessee is, therefore, confirmed. Accordingly, the Ground No.2 as taken by the assessee is rejected. 14. The next ground pertains to date of acquisition of the new property. The contention of the assessee that investment date in t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....been explained by the assessee. The Ld. Sr. DR submitted that the source of cash, particularly the deposits made in the bank account after demonetization, were unexplained and, therefore, the AO had rightly made the addition. 18. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. The AO had treated the entire cash deposits in the bank account of Rs.24,48,000/- as unexplained, which cannot be held as correct. There is no denial to the fact that the assessee was deriving agricultural income in cash. The net agricultural income disclosed by the assessee during the year was Rs.12,53,920/-, which was comparable with agricultural income of Rs.12,26,002/- disclosed in the preceding year. Thus, it is not the case that the assessee had inflated its agricultural income during the current year. Even though, the AO has disputed the nature of income from sale of firewood, the correctness of the sale transaction has not been challenged. On the other hand, the assessee also has not explained as to why all the cash was kept in the house and why those were deposited in the bank account mostly after demonetization. In fact, the total cash deposit during the demonetization period is to the extent....