Poonam Lal, CHENNAI V. ITO, CHENNAI

ITA 2289/CHNY/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4956 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-04-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 04-01-2017
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 21-12-2015
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUPRIYO PAL
• Assessee Lawyers: V S JAYAKUMAR
• Keywords: Reason to believe
• Section: 143(3); 54

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME - TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI , . , BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY , JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NO. 2289/MDS/2015 / ASSESSMENT YEAR :20 0 9 - 1 0 M RS. P OONAM LAL, NO. 14, FLAT NO. 1, 4 TH STREET, ABIRAMAPURAM, CHENNAI 600 01 8 . [PAN: A AXPP6666N ] VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD XV(2) C HENNAI 600 0 34 . ( / APPELLANT ) ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI V.S. JAYAKUMAR , A DVOCATE / RESPONDENT BY : S HRI SUPRIYO PAL , J CIT / DATE OF HEARING : 04 . 0 1 .201 7 / DAT E OF P RONOUNCEMENT : 03 . 0 4 .201 7 / O R D E R PER DUVVURU RL REDDY , JUDICIAL MEMBER : TH I S APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMIS SIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) 4 , C HENNAI DATED 2 7 . 1 0 .201 5 RELEVANT TO THE ASSE SSMENT YEAR 20 0 9 - 1 0 . THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED TWO EFFECTIVE GROUNDS VIZ., (I) THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 [ ACT IN SHORT] WAS LAID IN LAW AND (II) THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN C ONFIRMING DENIAL OF EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54 OF THE ACT. I.T.A. NO . 2289 / M/ 1 5 2 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND FILED THE RETURN OF INC OME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 1 0 ON 31.07 .2009 ADMITTING INCOME OF .1,91,232/ - . THE RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS PROCESSED UNDER SECTION 143(1) OF THE ACT ON 15.03.2011 . SUBSEQUENTLY, THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 24.08.2009, WHICH WAS RETU RNED UNSERVED WITH A REMARK DOOR LOCKED . HENCE, THE INSPECTOR WAS DIRECTED TO SERVE THE NOTICE ON THE ASSESSEE. THE INSPECTOR VISITED ON 30.09.2010, FOUND THAT THE DOOR OF THE ASSESSEE WAS LOCKED AND THEREFORE THE NOTICE WAS SERVED BY AFFIXTURE AFTER OBT AINING THE SIGNATURE OF THE TWO WITNESSES. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE, THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE MRS. M.R. RAMAMANI, FCA APPEARED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER FROM TIME TO TIME AND SUBMITTED ALL THE DETAILS AS CALLED FOR. AFTER EXAMINING THE DETAILS FILED BY T HE ASSESSEE AND CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 27.12.2011 ASSESSING TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT .54,84,269/ - AFTER MAKING VARIOUS DISALLOWANCES. 3. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND CHALLENGED THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. I.T.A. NO . 2289 / M/ 1 5 3 4. ON BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. WITH REGARD TO THE FIRST GROUND OF VALIDITY OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT, IT WAS THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT PROPER NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143 (2) OF THE ACT WAS NOT SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR HAS SUBMITTED THAT PROPER NOTICE WAS SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE AND IN RESPONS E TO THE NOTICE, THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE APPEARED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND FURNISHED ALL THE DETAILS AND MADE VARIOUS SUBMISSIONS AND THEREAFTER ONLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT. HE HAS STRO NGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH SIDES, PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. IN THIS CASE, THE N OTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED TO THE A SSESSEE ON 24 . 08 . 2009 , WHICH WAS RECEIVED BACK ANSWER WITH THE REMARK 'DOOR LOCKED.' THEREAFTER, THE A SSESSING O FFICER DEPUTED THE INSPECTOR OF HIS OFFICE TO SERVE THE N OTICE ON THE ASSESSEE. THE INSPECTOR VISITED THE PLACE OF THE A SSESSEE ON 30 . 09 . 2010 AND FOUND THE DOOR LOCKED AND, ACCORDINGLY, HE SERVED THE N OTICE BY WAY OF A FFIXTURE AFTER OBTAINING THE SIGNATURES OF THE TWO WITNESSES. THEREAFTER, THE LD. A.R. OF THE A SSESSEE HA S APPEARED BEFORE THE A SSESSING I.T.A. NO . 2289 / M/ 1 5 4 O FFICER FROM TIME TO TIME AND HAD ALSO SUBMITTED THE POWER OF ATTORNEY IN HER FAVOUR ALONG WITH THE SUBMISSIONS CALLED FOR BY THE A SSESSING O FFICER AS REQUIRED FOR THE COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING. 6.1 DURING THE COURSE OF THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE LD. AR. SUBMITTED THAT THAT THE A SSESSEE HAS OBJECTED TO THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ON THE GROUND THAT PROPER NOTICE WAS NOT SERVED ON HER IN TIME. IT HAS BEEN POINTED OUT THAT WHENEVER THE A SSESSEE WAS OUT OF STATION, THE SECURITY GUARD WOULD RECEIVE ALL THE CORRESPONDENCES ADDRESSED TO THE A SSE SSEE . THE SECURITY GUARD HAD RECEIVED THE FIRST NOTICE ONLY ON 18 . 07 . 2011 WHICH WAS HANDED OVER TO THE A SSESSEE ON 26 . 07 . 2011. THEREFORE, IT WAS ARGUED THAT THE NOTICE SERVED ON THE A SSESSEE WAS NOT PROPER AND LEGAL. THE A SSESSEE HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON DIF FERENT CASE LAWS TO SUBSTANTIATE HER PLEA. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER: 9. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT AS WELL. FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE FACTS MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, IT IS NOTICED THAT THERE HAS BEEN SINCERE EFFORTS ON THE PART OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICIALS TO GET THE NOTICE SEVERED ON THE APPELLANT IN THE NORMAL COURSE. HOWEVER, WHEN THE SAME WAS NOT POSS IBLE, THE NOTICE WAS SERVED THROUGH AFFIXTURE WHICH IS ONE OF THE MODES OF SERVICE OF NOTICE AS DEFINED IN THE PROVISIONS OF CPC. READING OF THE PROVISIONS OF ORDER 5, RULES 9, 12 AND 20 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 MAKES IT AMPLY CLEAR THAT ORDINA RILY THE SERVICE HAS TO BE EFFECTED ON THE PERSONS CONCERNED PERSONALLY, HOWEVER, WHERE THE AUTHORITY CONCERNED IS SATISFIED THAT THERE IS REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THE FOR ANY REASONS THE SUMMONS CANNOT BE SERVED IN THE ORDINARY WAY, THE AUTHORITY CAN ORDER THAT THE SUMMONS BE SERVED BY AFFIXING A COPY THEREOF IN SOME CONSPICUOUS PART I.T.A. NO . 2289 / M/ 1 5 5 OF THE HOUSE (IF ANY) IN WHICH THE PERSON WHO IS TO BE SERVED IS KNOWN TO HAVE LAST RESIDED OR CARRIED OUT BUSINESS. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE AO HAS RESORTED TO AFFIXTURE OF NOT ICE ONLY AFTER SATISFYING HIMSELF OF THE SITUATION WHICH WOULD HAVE WARRANTED THE SERVICE BY WAS AFFIXTURE. THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE INSTANT CASE, THE ACTION OF THE AO IS BONAFIDE AND JUSTIFIED AND, HENCE, THE SERVICE OF NOT ICE UNDER SECTION 143 (2) OF THE ACT IS HELD TO BE PROPER AND LEGAL. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143 (3) OF THE ACT IS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 6.2 THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED ANY SECOND ADDRESS FOR COMMUNICATION WHEN THE ASSESSEE WAS OUT OF STATION; SINCE THE ASSESSEE IS SUPPOSE TO DO SO. WHEN THE DEPARTMENT MADE SINCERE STEPS TO SERVE NOTICE AND WHEN IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE, THE NOTICE WAS SERVED THROUGH AFFIXTURE, WHICH IS ONE OF THE MODES OF SERV ICE OF NOTICE AS DEFINED IN THE PROVISIONS OF CPC. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE NOTICE HAS BEEN SERVED PROPERLY AND LEGALLY. THUS, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 7. THE NEXT GROUND RAISED IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING DENIAL OF EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54 OF THE ACT. 7.1 DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE A SSESSEE SOLD HER RESIDEN TIAL HOUSE FOR A CONSIDERATION OF .74,00,000/ - . WHILE DETERMINING THE LONG CAPITAL GAINS, THE A SSESSEE HAS CLAIMED A DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54 OF THE ACT TO THE EXTENT OF .35,54,495/ - , ON ACCOUNT OF PURCHASE OF A NEW RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. FROM THE DETAILS AND THE DOCUMENTS FURNISHED BY THE I.T.A. NO . 2289 / M/ 1 5 6 A SSESSEE , THE A SSESSING O FFICER HAS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS UTILISED THE SALE PROCEEDS OF THE HOUSE SOLD, FOR THE REPAYMENT OF LOAN AVAILED FROM THE L D BI BANK TAKEN FOR THE PURCHASE OF NEW HOUSE. SINCE , THE PROVISIO NS OF SECTION 54 OF THE ACT ALLOWS DEDUCTION ONLY IF THE SALE PROCEEDS OF THE OLD HOUSE (SOLD) ARE INVESTED IN ACQUIRING THE NEW RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY WITHIN THE STIPULATED TIME LIMITS. THE A SSESSING O FFICER DISALLOWED THE ASSESSEE'S CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDE R SECTION 54 OF THE ACT. IN ADDITION, THE A SSESSING O FFICER ALSO DISALLOWED THE A SSESSEE S CLAIM OF COURSE TO IMPROVEMENT FOR THE WANT OF DETAILS AND EVIDENCES. 7.2 DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT SHE HAD ENTERED INTO AN MOU WITH ONE MRS. TAMILSELVI ON 10 . 04 . 2006 FOR SELLING H ER OLD HOUSE LOCATED AT THIRD STREET, ABHIRAMAPURAM AND RECEIVED AN ADVANCE OF .1,00,000/ - IN CASH. AS PER THE MOU, SMT. TAMILSELVI WAS TO IDENTIFY THE PARTIES FOR BUYING THE ASSESSEE S HOUSE. THE MOU WAS VALID FOR 6 MONTHS ONLY. HOWEVER, AS MRS.TAMILSELVI FAILED TO IDENTIFY BUYERS FOR THE PROPERTY, THE ASSESSEE RETURNED THE ADVANCE ON THE EXPIRY OF SIX MONTHS. MEANWHILE, THE ASSESSEE SEARCHED FOR A NEW HOUSE PROPERTY AND ENTERED INTO AGREEMENT TO BUY THE SAME. WHEN THE ABOVE MOU EXPIRED AND THERE WERE NO IMMEDIATE BUYERS FOR THE OLD PROPERTY, SHE PURCHASED THE NEW HOUSE PROPERTY (FL AT) BY AVAILIN G A LOAN FROM THE L D BI BANK. SUBSEQUENTLY, IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2008 - 09, THE A SSESSEE SOLD THE OLD HOUSE PROPERTY AND OUT I.T.A. NO . 2289 / M/ 1 5 7 OF THE SALE PROCEEDS THEREOF, AN AMOUNT OF .35,54,495/ - WAS UTILISED FOR CLEARING THE LOAN TAKEN FROM L D BI FOR PURCHASING THE NEW HOUSE PROPERTY. THUS, THE A SSESSEE CLAIMED THAT SINCE THE PROCEEDS OF THE OLD HOUSE WERE UTILISED FOR CLEARING THE L D BI LOAN AVAILED FOR PURCHASING THE NEW HOUSE PROPERT Y, THE SAID UTILISATION OF MONEY FOR CLEARING THE LOAN, WAS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54 OF THE ACT WHILE COMPUTING THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS. 7.3 AFTER CONSIDERING THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND EXAMINING THE DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS OBSERVED T HE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS ORDER MISTAKENLY CONSIDERED THAT THE LOAN WAS TAKEN FOR THE HOUSE WHICH WAS SOLD. THIS WA S NOT CORRECT. THE LOAN FROM L D BI WAS TAKEN FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE PURCHASE OF A NEW RESIDENTIA L FLAT. AS PER THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND ALSO ASCERTAINED FROM THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE FILED DURING THE COURSE OF THE APPELLATE PROCEEDING, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS OBSERVED AND HELD AS UNDER: (I) THOUGH THE APPELLANT CLAIME D THAT SHE ENTERED INTO AN MOU WITH MRS. TAMILSELVI ON 10.04.2006 FOR SELLING HER OLD HOUSE LOCATED AT THIRD STREET, ABHIRAMAPURAM, IT NEVER MATERIALISED. FURTHER, IT WAS NOT EVEN AN AGREEMENT FOR THE SALE OF THE HOUSE. THE MOU WAS ONLY AN UNDERSTANDING TH AT MRS. TAMILSELVI WOULD GET THE BUYER FOR THE PROPERTY OF THE APPLICANT. (II) THE NEW HOUSE PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED IN THE YEAR 2005. THE DETAILS OF PURCHASE OF THE NEW HOUSE, AS PER THE DETAILS FILED BY THE APPELLANT WIDE SUBMISSIONS DATED 14.03.2013, ARE AS UNDER: - LAND (I.E UDS) WAS REGISTERED ON 18/05/2005 FOR A CONSIDERATION OF .31, 84, 675/ - . I.T.A. NO . 2289 / M/ 1 5 8 - CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT WITH THE BUILDER DATED 18TH OF NOVEMBER 2004 WAS FOR .16,21,200/ - . - TOTAL LOAN AVAILED FROM THE LOBI BANK FOR NEW HOUSE WAS AT .40,00,000/ - . - RECEIVED THE POSSESSION OF THE FLAT IN OCTOBER 2006. - THE ASSESSEE OCCUP IED THE PROPERTY FOR SELF - OCCUPATION ON 01.10.2008. - DATE OF REPAYMENT AND CLOSE AT OF THE LOAN ACCOUNT WAS 31.10.2008 AND THE AMOUNT TO BE PAID TO LDBI BANK AND CLOSURE OF ACCOUNT WAS .35,54,495/ - . (III) THE OLD HOUSE PROPERTY WAS FINALLY SOLD ON 26.09 .2008 FOR A CONSIDERATION OF .74,00,000/ - . OUT OF THE ABOVE SALE - PROCEEDS, AN AMOUNT OF .35,54,495/ - WAS UTILISED FOR REPAYMENT OF LOAN TO LDBI BANK ON 31.10.2008. AFTER SELLING THE OLD HOUSE PROPERTY, THE APPELLANT MOVED TO THE NEW HOUSE PROPERTY ON 01.1 0.2008 AND CONTINUED TO RESIDE THERE. 14. AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 54 OF THE ACT, FOR CALCULATING THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS FROM THE SALE OF A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE, THE ASSESSEE CAN BE ALLOWED A DEDUCTION TO THE EXTENT OF THE INVESTMENT MADE IN A NEW RESIDENTIAL HOUSE PURCHASED/ CONSTRUCTED WITHIN ONE YEAR PRIOR TO THE DATE OF SALE OF THE OLD HOUSE OR WITHIN TWO YEARS FROM THE DATE OF SALE OF ALL HOUSE PROPERTY PURCHASED A NEW HOUSE OR WITHIN THREE YEARS FROM THE DATE OF SALE OF ALL HOUSE PROPERTY , CONSTRUCTED A NEW HOUSE. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE APPELLANT HAS SOLD THE OLDER RESIDENTIAL HOUSE ON 26.09.2008. THEREFORE, THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54 IS AVAILABLE ON THE INVESTMENT MADE IN A NEW RESIDENTIAL HOUSE, IF: A) SUCH NEW HOUSE IS PURCHASED OR CONSTRUCTED WITHIN ONE YEAR PRIOR TO THE DATE OF SALE OF THE OLD HOUSE I.E BETWEEN 26/09/2007 AND 25/09/2008, OR B) SUCH NEW HOUSE IS PURCHASED WITHIN TWO YEARS FROM THE DATE OF SALE OF THE OLD HOUSE, I.E. BETWEEN 27/09/2008 AND 26/09/2010, OR C) SUC H NEW HOUSE IS CONSTRUCTED WITHIN THREE YEARS FROM THE DATE OF SALE OF THE OLD HOUSE, I.E. BETWEEN 27/09/2008 AND 26/09/2011. 15. WHEREAS, IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE APPELLANT'S CLAIM IS REGARDING THE NEW HOUSE PURCHASED PRIOR TO THE DATE OF SALE OF THE O LD HOUSE. AS PER THE DETAILS FILED BY THE APPELLANT, SHE HAD ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE BUILDER ON 18/11/2004. EVEN THE LAND (UDS) RELATING TO THE SAID FLAT (NEW PROPERTY) WAS REGISTERED ON 18/05/2005. FURTHER, EVEN THE POSSESSION OF THE NEW PROPER TY WAS RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT IN OCTOBER 2006. ALL THE DATES ARE FAR BEFORE THE STIPULATED PERIOD OF ONE YEAR PRIOR TO THE DATE OF SALE OF I.T.A. NO . 2289 / M/ 1 5 9 THE OLD PROPERTY ON 26/09/2008. IN OTHER WORDS, ANYTHING THAT WAS PURCHASED OR CONSTRUCTED PRIOR TO 26/09/2007, IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54 OF THE ACT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS, THE APPELLANT IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54 OF THE ACT. 16. THE NEXT ISSUE IS REGARDING THE REPAYMENT OF LOAN AVAILED FOR THE PURPOSE OF PURCHASING THE NEW HOUSE PROPERTY. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 54 CLEARLY STATE THAT THE NEW HOUSE SHOULD BE PURCHASED OR CONSTRUCTED WITHIN ONE YEAR PRIOR TO THE DATE , OF SALE OF THE OLD HOUSE. THIS MEANS THAT THE PURCHASE OF CONSTRUCTION SHOULD HAVE TAKEN PLACE DURING THIS PERIOD. HENCE, REPAYMENT OF LOAN AVAILED FOR PURCHASE OF HOUSE PRIOR TO THE SPECIFIED TIME LIMITS CANNOT BE ALLOWED AS A DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54 OF THE ACT, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE DATE OF THE PAYMENT. 17. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FINDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY CONCLUDED THAT THE APPELLANT WAS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54 OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS CONFIRMED. 18. THE OTHER ISSUE IS REGARDING THE A PPELLANT'S CLAIM OF COST OF IMPROVEMENT AND ITS INDEXATION. THE APPELLANT IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME, WHILE COMPUTING THE TAXABLE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS, CLAIMED THE INDEXED COST OF IMPROVEMENT AT RS.16,88,879/ - . AS PER THE APPELLANT, THE COST OF IMPROVEMENT IS IN THE FORM OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON THE INTERIORS ETC. HOWEVER, AS THE APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE OR PROVE THE DETAILS AND THE EXTENT OF IMPROVEMENTS CARRIED OUT, WITH NECESSARY EVIDENCES, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF COST OF IMPROVEMENT AND ITS INDEXATION. THE APPELLANT, EVEN BEFORE THE UNDERSIGNED, COULD NOT FURNISH ANY SUCH EVIDENCES OR DETAILS OF THE COST OF THE IMPROVEMENTS EXCEPT CLAIMING THAT THE OLD HOUSE WHICH WAS SOLD, WAS VERY OLD AND THE APPELLANT KEPT ON INCURR ING VARIOUS EXPENSES FROM TIME TO TIME IN THE FORM OF INTERIORS ETC. HENCE, THE APPELLANT CLAIMED THAT HER CLAIM SHOULD BE ALLOWED. 19. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT EVIDENCES IN HER POSSESSION, OF WHATEVER, REGARDING THE CLAIM OF IMPROVEMENTS. THEREFORE, IN THE ABSENCE OF THE EVIDENCES, IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOT THE CLAIMS OF DEDUCTION IS IN THE FORM OF IMPROVEMENTS ETC. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NO OPTION BUT TO DISALLOW ANY SUCH CLAIMS WHICH WERE NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY EVIDENCES OR D ETAILS. THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS AS PER THE LAW AND HENCE REQUIRED NO INTERFERENCE. THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT FAILS IN HER APPEALS ON THIS GROUND AS WELL. 8. ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE BUILDER ON 18.11.20 04. THE LAND (UDS) RELATING TO THE SAID FLAT (NEW PROPERTY) WAS REGISTERED ON 18.05.2005. FURTHER, POSSESSION OF THE NEW PROPERTY WAS I.T.A. NO . 2289 / M/ 1 5 10 TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN OCTOBER, 2006. ALL THESE DATES ARE FAR BEFORE THE STIPULATED PERIOD OF ONE YEAR PRIOR TO THE DATE OF SALE OF THE OLD PROPERTY ON 26.09.2008. OTHERWISE ALSO, ANYTHING THAT WAS PURCHASED OR CONSTRUCTED PRIOR TO 26.09.2007 WAS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54 OF THE ACT. THUS, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54 OF THE ACT. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS PASSED WELL REASONED DETAILED SPEAKING ORDER AFTER ANALYSING THE DOCUMENTS AND SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE HIM. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN ALL COUNTS. THUS, THE GROUND S RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. 9 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THE 03 RD APRIL , 201 7 AT CHENNAI. SD/ - SD/ - (CHANDRA POOJARI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( DUVVURU RL REDDY ) JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI , DATED, THE 03 . 0 4 .201 7 VM/ - / COPY TO: 1. / APPELLANT , 2. / RESPONDENT , 3. ( ) / CIT(A) , 4. / CIT , 5. / DR & 6. / GF.