TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 803
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Income Tax Act amounting to Rs. 1,22,45,121/- made by the Ld. Assessing Officer. 3). The Ld. CIT(A) has erred not appreciating the principle of residential house given in the case of Geeta Duggal vs CIT 357 ITR 353 by Hon'ble Delhi High Court. 2. Cash deposited into Bank Account :- Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 17,28,000/- in r/o cash deposited in the bank accounts during the demonetization by ignoring the submissions and evidence placed before the Ld. CIT(A) and Ld. Assessing Officer. The order of lower authorities being erroneous, illegal and arbitrary, the same may kindly be modified." 3. The assessee has also taken the following additional ground :- "3. Without prejudice, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Ld. AO in taxing the addition of Rs. 17,28,000/- u/s. 68 at the rate of 60% u/s. 115BBE instead of applicable rate of 30% u/s. 115BBE as applicable to the year under consideration." 4. Ld. AR submitted that since the above ground of appeal is purely legal, does not require fresh facts to be investigated and go to the root of the matter, the same may ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....duction u/s. 54/54F, however, the provision of section 54F used the expression a residential house, therefore assessee is not eligible to claim the deduction u/s. 54F of the Act. 9. Further AO noticed that the assessee had deposited Rs. 17,28,000/- during demonetisation period. The assessee was asked to explain the same. The assessee had submitted a chart to show cash deposit trends during financial year 2015-16 and 2016-17 with the break up for the period before and after the demonetisation period, the same is reproduced at page 10 of the assessment order. He observed that there is no prior history of having cash in hand, therefore the assessee failed to explain the cash deposit made during demonetisation period. Accordingly, he proceeded to make the addition u/s. 69A of the Act and also invoked the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act to apply the prescribed rates of tax. 10. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before NFAC, Delhi. The assessee has raised several grounds of appeal and filed submissions similar to the submissions made before AO. After considering the above submissions and findings of AO, he proceeded to sustain both the additions. 11. Aggrieved ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... copy of assessee's reply dated 15.01.2024, wherein it was submitted that assessee owned one residential house other than the new asset, asserting that multiple units within a building constitute one residential house. In order to support the claim, reliance in placed on the case of Gita Duggal (supra) wherein the Court pointed out that there is nothing in these Sections which requires the residential house to be constructed in a particular manner. A person may construct a house according to his plans and requirements. He may arrange for his children or his family to stay there. He may construct a residence in such a manner that in case of a future need he may be able to dispose of, a part thereof as an independent house. Therefore, physical structuring of the new residential house, whether it is lateral or vertical, should come in the way of considering the building as a residential house. The SLP against this judgement was dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Gita Duggal, [20141 52 taxmann.com 246. There is no doubt that this decision was rendered in the context of "a residential house". I however, a distinction should be made between a residential unit and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rein rent income from the aforesaid property has been duly offered under the head house property." 14. On the other hand, ld. DR of the Revenue submitted that the assessee was changing its stand before lower authorities on the issue of deduction claimed u/s. 54/54F. He brought to our notice joint development agreement and submitted that the assessee had actually sold second floor and car parking and purchased more than one property. At the time of claiming deduction u/s. 54F, he was holding more than one property, therefore he is not eligible to claim the deduction. Further he submitted that the cases relied by the assessee are distinguishable. With regard to cash deposits, he relied on the findings of lower authorities. 15. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. We observed that the assessee was declaring income from house property as under: (i) Karol Bagh UGF (ii) Karol Bagh First floor (iii) Karol Bagh IVth floor (iv) Pitampura first floor (v) Pitampura third floor 16. The issue before us is whether the assessee has more than one property other than the new property constructed. We observed that the a....