2025 (3) TMI 2129

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... bad in law and without natural justice. 2. The valuation made by valuation officer for Rs. 4,48,628/- as against valuation incorrect as the same has not included the construction made by appellant is incorrect, bad in law and without natural justice and the same is to be deleted. 3. The disallowance of deduction u/s 54F of Rs. 3,44,148/- and addition u/s 50C of Rs. 1,04,480/- is incorrect, illegal, bad in law and without natural justice and the same is to be deleted. 4. The addition of Total Rs. 4,48,628/- levied on appellant is incorrect, illegal, bad in law and without natural justice and the same is to be deleted. 5. Appellant craves a right to add, modify, alter or withdraw and of the ground/s of app....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e Assessing Officer accordingly valued the cost of sold property at Rs. 4,64,000, as against the stamp duty value of Rs. 6,96,750. The assessee claimed deduction of Rs. 4,48,928, under section 54F of the Act for utilization of entire sale proceeds in his return of income which was rejected by the Assessing Officer for want of bills, payment vouchers, etc. 4. On appeal, the learned CIT(A) confirmed the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer and dismissed the appeal of the assessee by holding as under:- "5.8 The appellant has filed evidence which are contradictory to each other. It seems that the appellant has constructed two small shop rooms with GI sheet roofing and a small toilet sometime after the sale of land but be....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....esidential house out of the entire sale proceeds and claimed deduction under section 54F of the Act for utilisation of entire sale proceeds in his return of income which was rejected by the Assessing Officer without adducing any cogent reason. The Valuation Officer valued the property for Rs. 4,64,000 as against the stamp duty value of Rs. 6,96,750. Rejecting the claim of the assessee under section 54F of the Act only on the ground that bills and vouchers are not produce, in our considered opinion, is not justified. Since the entire sale proceeds have been utilised for construction, therefore, the assessee is eligible to claim deduction under section 54F of the Act. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A) a....