TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 449
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed his return of income for the A.Y. 2015-16 on 12.10.2015 declaring income of Rs. 4,17,160/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny. In the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee had shown Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) of Rs. 41,55,131/- on sale of one flat, one godown & a gold-bar. The assessee had also claimed deduction under Section 54F of the Act in respect of purchase of new residential property at "Noble Antrix". The Assessing Officer found that the assessee had disclosed two house properties under the head "income from house property". Apart from these two house....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....which was decided by the Ld. CIT(A) vide the impugned order and the appeal of the assessee was dismissed. 4. Now, the assessee is in second appeal before us. The following grounds have been taken by the assessee in this appeal: - "(1) The learned CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding addition of Rs. 25,81,731/- on account of LTCG without properly appreciating the facts of the assessee and without providing the remand report and without properly considering the vital factual and legal aspects submitted to the A.O in-response to remand report requested by the A.O. vide letter dated 30/12/2024. (2) He has erred in law and on facts in not considering and appreciating the written submission dated 16/01/2025 sent....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Nos. 1, 2 and 4 pertain to computation of LTCG derived by the assessee. On the issue of claim of deduction under Section 54F of the Act disallowed by the Assessing Officer, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee did not own more than one residential house property on the date of transfer of the asset. He explained that other two properties were rented properties and the rental income was offered to tax. Further, that the assessee was not the exclusive owner of two rented properties but was only a co-owner. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was not correct in disallowing the deduction under Section 54F of the Act. In this regard, he has placed reliance on certain case laws filed in the paper-book. 6. Per contra, Shri B.P. Srivastava, the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... date of transferring of original asset. The law on this issue is specific. If the assessee owns more than one residential house, he will not be entitled to claim the benefit of deduction under Section 54F of the Act. The manner in which the residential house is utilised, i.e. whether it is given on rent or is self-occupied, is immaterial. Further, there is no requirement that the assessee should be exclusive owner of the residential house. Even if the assessee is co-owner of more than one residential house, he will not be entitled to deduction under Section 54F of the Act. Therefore, the deduction under Section 54F of the Act as claimed by the assessee was rightly disallowed by the Assessing Officer. The facts of the cases relied upon by t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed in the residential property, as unexplained. The Ld. AR submitted that the evidence for purchase of gold bar was filed before the Ld. CIT(A) in the course of appeal proceedings. The matter was referred to the Assessing Officer for the remand report and on the basis of the remand report of the Assessing Officer, the Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the addition. The Ld. AR explained that the assessee has brought on record sale bill dated 04.11.2002 for purchase of gold bar at a cost of Rs. 4,67,500/- from one Goldfinch Jewellery Limited. The Assessing Officer in the course of remand proceedings had issued notice under Section 133(6) of the Act to the Jewellers from whom the jewellery was purchased and also to the Jewellers to whom the gold bar wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ale proceeds was received by the assessee in his bank account through cheques. Considering the fact that the assessee had brought on record the evidence for purchase of gold bar, the sale proceeds of Rs. 27,77,700/- in respect of gold bar could not have been treated as unexplained. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 27,77,700/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained investment is deleted. However, the capital gain derived by the assessee on sale of this gold bar is required to be taxed in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The Assessing Officer had taxed the capital gain derived on sale of Motidham Flat and sale of godown only in the assessment order and the entire sale proceeds of gold bar was separately taxed as unexp....