TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 695
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....caped the income. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that the reassessment cannot be initiated merely due to change in opinion of AO. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that the AO erred in issuing notice u/s 148 dated 22.11.2018 which is barred by limitation. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering that the AO and Valuation officer ought to have appreciated the fact that the land being in disputed land and in unequal dimensions, the land was sold by the seller in a distress. 7. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering that the AO and Valuation officer ought to have appreciated the fact that the land being encroached by local area people and community and no proper survey being done in spite of numerous attempts, the assessee was forced to sell the land in a distress sale. 8. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering that the AO and valuation officer ought to have appreciated the fact that the land in question was in disputes towards tittle of property and in respect of its boundaries. 9. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering that the AO ought to have appreciated the fact there were also the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the AO erred in taxing the exemption claimed u/s 54F in the AY 2013-14. 21. The assessee may add, alter, or modify or substitute any other points to the grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing of appeal." 3. The Revenue has filed the C.O. with delay of 254 days, for which they have filed one combined condonation petition in the form of Affidavit. Learned Department Representative ("Ld. DR") submitted that, during the relevant period of delay of the C.O., there was transfer of the Ld. AO, nomination of the Ld. AO for election duty and there were time barring assessment, penalty cases, reopening of assessment, etc. For these reasons, delay has been caused in filing of the C.O. He prayed before the bench to condone the delay in filing of the appeal. After hearing the Ld. AR, we found that there was reasonable cause behind the filing of C.O. by the Revenue. Accordingly, we condone the delay and allow the C.O. for adjudication. 4. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is an individual, filed its Return of Income ("ROI") for A.Y. 2013-14 on 5.3.2015 admitting total income of Rs. 3,21,052/-. The Learned Assessing Officer ("Ld. AO") was ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cified u/s.139(1) of the Act. Finally, the Ld. AO completed the assessment u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 22.12.2019 considering the sales consideration at Rs. 67,34,000/-, allowing the deduction of Rs. 1,17,300/- on account of Index Cost of acquisition of land and made addition of Rs. 66,16,700/- on account of LTCG. 5. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. AO, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) upholding the findings of the Ld. AO, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 6. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. The Learned Authorised Representative ("Ld. AR") submitted that, in this appeal, four issues are involved. The first issue is related to substitution of sale consideration of Rs. 67,34,000/- in place of Rs. 45 lakhs. The second issue is disallowance of cost of improvement of Rs. 7.50 lakhs, the third issue is relating to the disallowance of cost of expenses of Rs. 12 lakhs on account of payments made to litigants and litigation expenses and the fourth issue is relating to denial of exemption u/s.54F of the Act. 7. With regard to the first issue, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee has sold the land....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ad of Rs. 67,34,000/-. 7.3 In the result, the first issue of the assessee is allowed. 8. With regard to second issue, related to cost of improvement of Rs. 7,50,000/-, the Ld. AR submitted that, the assessee has incurred cost of Rs. 2.50 lakhs; Rs. 2 lakhs; Rs. 2 lakhs and Rs. 1 lakh during the F.Ys. 2000-01, 2001-02, 2007-08 and 2009-10 respectively. However, the assessee could not maintained the evidences in support of those expenses. Due to non-furnishing of evidences, both the revenue authorities disallowed the cost of improvement of Rs. 7,50,000/- for the purpose of calculation of LTCG. The Ld. AR further submitted that, it is not practicable for an individual-assessee to keep and maintain evidences for quite long time and therefore, he prayed before the bench to allow the claim of the assessee. 8.1 Per contra, the Ld. DR relying on the order of revenue authorities, submitted that, it is the duty of the assessee to substantiate his claim with relevant bills and vouchers. As the assessee could not submit any evidence in support of the cost of improvement, the same are not liable to be allowed. 8.2 We have heard the rival contentions and also gone through the record ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e, in our considered opinion, the payment made by the assessee is eligible for deduction from the sale consideration of land. Further, as we have found that, there is a litigation with regard to the impugned land, incurring of litigation expenses cannot be denied. However, as the assessee could not produce any evidence in support of the expenses, we thought it appropriate to allow Rs. 50,000/- on account of litigation expenses. Accordingly, we allow total deduction of Rs. 11,50,000/- out of total claim of Rs. 12 lakhs. 9.4 In the result, the third issue of the assessee is partly allowed. 10. With regard to fourth issue, the Ld. AR submitted that, the assessee had invested total amount of Rs. 45 lakhs in CGAS before the date of filing of ROI and claimed exemption u/s.54F of the Act. As the date of deposit in CGAS was after the specified due date u/s.139(1) of the Act, the Ld. AO disallowed the exemption of Rs. 18,14,003/- u/s.54F of the Act. The Ld. AR relying on the decision of Hon'ble High Courts and Tribunals (page nos.1 to 53 of the case laws of paper book) and submitted that even if the amounts are invested in CGAS after the due date specified u/s.139(1) of the Act, b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sh a return of such income of the previous year in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner and setting forth such other particulars as may be prescribed and all the provisions of this Act, shall, so far as may be, apply as if it were a return required to be furnished under sub-section (1). (4C) Every- (a) research association referred to in clause (21) of section 10; (b) news agency referred to in clause (22B) of section 10; (c) association or institution referred to in clause (23A) of section 10; (ca) person referred to in clause (23AAA) of section 10; (d) institution referred to in clause (23B) of section 10; (e) fund or institution referred to in sub-clause (iv) or trust or institution referred to in sub-clause (v) or any university or other educational institution referred to in sub-clause (iiiab) or sub-clause (iiiad) or sub-clause (vi) or any hospital or other medical institution referred to in sub-clause (iiiac) or sub-clause (iiiae) or sub-clause (via) of clause (23C) of section 10; (ea) Mutual Fund referred to in clause (23D) of section 10; (eb) securitisation trust referred ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....turn required to be furnished under sub-section (1). (4F) Every investment fund referred to in section 115UB, which is not required to furnish return of income or loss under any other provisions of this section, shall furnish the return of income in respect of its income or loss in every previous year and all the provisions of this Act shall, so far as may be, apply as if it were a return required to be furnished under sub-section (1)." From the perusal of the provisions contained u/s.54F(4) of the Act, it is abundantly clear that, to claim the exemption u/s.54F of the Act on account of deposit made in CGAC, the deposit has to be made not later than the due date of furnishing of ROI specified u/s.139(1) of the Act. We have also gone through the cases relied on by the Ld. AR (page nos.1 to 53 of the paper book), wherein, the Hon'ble ITAT / Courts have held that if the amount deposited in CGAS is subsequently invested in the purchase / construction of residential property in accordance with the provision of section 54F, then only the amount so deposited in CGAS after the due date specified u/s.139(1) of the Act, but before filing of ROI u/s.139(4) of the Act can be al....