Mayuri Atul Shah, CHENNAI V. ITO, CHENNAI

ITA 2046/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4619 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-05-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 22-02-2017
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 04-07-2016
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHIVA SRINIVAS
• Section: 143(3); 54F; 148; 54

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME - TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, CHENNAI , . , BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY , J UDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NO. 2046 /MDS/2016 / ASSESSMENT YEAR :20 0 9 - 10 MRS. MAYURI ATUL SHAH, C/O MR. N ANDA KUMAR, C.AS., NO. 15, IIIRD FLOOR, GEMINI PARSAN COMPLEX, C HENNAI 600 0 06 . [PAN: A AC PA1988P ] VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, BU SINESS WARD IV ( 2 ), CHENNAI . ( / APPELLANT ) ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI VIL E SH DALYA , C.A. / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SHIVA SRINIVAS , J CIT / DATE OF HEARING : 22 . 0 2 .201 7 / DATE OF P RONOUNCEMENT : 09 . 0 5 .201 7 / O R D E R PER DUVVURU RL REDDY , JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) 1 5 , CHENNAI DATED 10 . 03 .201 6 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 0 9 - 1 0, WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED CONFIRMATION OF ADDITION OF .42,54,066/ - IGNORING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 54F OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 [ ACT IN SHORT]. I.T.A. NO. 2046 /M/16 2 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAS FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 ON 07.09.2009 DECLARING INCOME OF .2,90,72,790/ - . THE RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT WAS COMPLETED ON 29.1 1.2011 BY MAKING AN ADDITION OF .6,84,730/ - . SUBSEQUENTLY, NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE SINCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THERE IS AN ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE, THE ASSESSEE S AR AP PEARED AND PRODUCED ALL THE DETAILS AS CALLED FOR. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND FACTS OF THE CASE, THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE ACT WAS COMPLETED AFTER MAKING VARIOUS ADDITIONS. 3. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED T HE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). WITH REGARD TO THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE ACT, AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND FACTS OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED COPIES OF THE SALE DEEDS, BUILDING PLAN, AND ANY OTHER DOCUMENT TO PROVE THAT TWO FLATS ARE USED AS ONE RESIDENTIAL UNIT. 4. AGAINST THE CONFIRMATION OF THE DISALLOWANCE, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. BY FI LING THE COPIES OF PURCHASE AGREEMENTS, PROJECT DETAILS, ETC., THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WENT IN WRONG TO RESTRICT THE ALLOWABLE DEDUCTION UNDER I.T.A. NO. 2046 /M/16 3 SECTION 54 OF THE ACT AND PRAYED THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE AL LOWED TO CLAIM FULL DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54 OF THE ACT SINCE TWO ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL UNITS ARE CONVERTED INTO SINGLE RESIDENTIAL UNIT BY THE BUILDER WHILE CONSTRUCTING THE FLAT HAVING COMMON KITCHEN, ETC. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR HAS STRONGL Y SUPPORTED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH SIDES, PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDE R, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS OBSERVED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED TWO FLATS HAVING SEPARATE DOOR NUMBERS OF EACH FLAT AND THERE IS NO SEPARATE DOCUMENTS FOR EACH FLAT, HE CONSIDERED IT AS TWO DIFFERENT UNITS AND ACCORDINGLY RESTRICTED THE EXEMPTI ON CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AS TO ONE FLAT AND WORKED OUT THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS. ON APPEAL, SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED COPIES OF THE SALE DEEDS, BUILDING PLAN, AND ANY OTHER DOCUMENT TO PROVE THAT TWO FLATS ARE USED AS ONE RESIDENTIAL UNIT, THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. BEFORE US, IN THE FORM OF PAPER BOOK, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED COPIES OF AGREEMENT, BUILDING PLAN, ETC. ALONG WITH VARIOUS CASE LAW IN SUPPORT OF HER CLAIM. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) TO EXAMINE THE DETAILS AND DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH AFTER ALLOWING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES OF BEING HEARD TO THE I.T.A. NO. 2046 /M/16 4 ASSESSEE . THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO FURNISH ALL DETAILS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THUS, THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASS ESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 7 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES . ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THE 09 TH MAY , 201 7 AT CHENNAI. SD/ - SD/ - ( CHANDRA POOJARI ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( DUVVURU RL REDDY ) JUDI CIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED, THE 09 . 0 5 .201 7 VM/ - / COPY TO: 1. / APPELLANT , 2. / RESPONDENT , 3. ( ) / CIT(A) , 4. / CIT , 5. / DR & 6. / GF.