Vivek Y Bhat , Bangalore V. Income TAx Officer Ward-5(3)(5), Bangalore

ITA 2481/BANG/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5672 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-01-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 16-01-2018
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 23-11-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SWAPNA DAS
• Assessee Lawyers: K S NAGESH
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Corroborative evidences
• Section: 54F

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC-A BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 2481 / BANG/201 7 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 1 3 - 14 SHRI VIVEK Y BHAT, NO. 639, 9 TH MAIN, 3 RD PHASE, 3 RD STAGE, BASAVESHWARNAGAR, BANGALORE 560 018. PAN: AELPB 1247D VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5 (3) (5), BANGALORE. APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI K.S. NAGESH, CA RESPONDENT BY : SMT. SWAPNA DAS, JCIT (DR) DATE OF HEARING : 16 .01.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19 .0 1 .201 8 O R D E R PER SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS IS AN ASSESSEES APPEAL WHICH IS DIRECTED AGAI NST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) 5, BANGALORE DATED 29.08.2017 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 013-14. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER. I HAVE SOLD FOLLOWING 3 SITES DURING A Y 2013-14. T HEY ARE- SALE OF ANANTHNAGAR SITE - RS, 20,00,000 SALE OF NAGARBHAVI SITE - RS. 63,78,000 SALE OF NELAMANGALA SITE - RS. 35,00,000 ----------------------- TOTAL SALE CONSIDERATION - RS, 1, 18, 78,000 LESS: COMMISSION PAID - RS. 2, 00,000 ------------------------ NET SALE CONSIDERATION - RS. 1, 16, 78,000 DURING THE A Y 2013-14, I HAVE PURCHASED A RESIDENT IAL FLAT. THE TOTAL AMOUNT SPENT ON THE SAME IS AS FOLLOWS: A) PURCHASE CONSIDERATION - RS.86,50,000 B) STAMP DUTY - RS. 4,84,425 C) REGISTRATION FEE - RS. 87,060 ITA NO.2481/BANG/2017 PAGE 2 OF 4 --------------------------------- [A] - RS. 92, 21,485 -------------------------------- - D) INTERIORS [ 15/12/2012 TO 31/03/2013 - RS. 15,00,00 0 E) INTERIORS [ 01/04/2013 TO 31/07/2013 - RS. 10,00,00 0 F) HOUSING LOAN INTEREST [01/04/2013 TO 31/07/2013] - RS. 3,87,597 G) HOUSING LOAN INTEREST [01.08.2013 TO 31.07.2017] - RS. 5,76,113 ---------------------------------- [B] - RS. 34,64,710 -------------------------------- -- TOTAL INVESTMENT ON FLAT [A+B] - RS. 1, 26,85,195 --------------------------------- IT IS VERY APPARENT FROM ABOVE THAT AS AGAINST NET SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 1,16,78,000, I HAVE INVESTED A SUM OF RS. 1, 26,85,195 IN RESIDENTIAL FLAT. THE TOTAL INVESTMENT IN THE RESIDENTIAL FLAT IS MAD E WITHIN 2 YEARS FROM THE DATE OF SALE OF LONG TERM ASSET THESE SIDE S. THEREFOREI AM ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 54F. IN SUPPORT OF SL NO 2(A), 2(B) AND 2(C), I HAVE ENC LOSED TITLE DEED OF THE FLAT I HAVE PURCHASED. IN SUPPORT OF SL NO 2(D) AND 2(E), I HAVE ENCLOSED QUOTATION FROM THE CONTRACTOR DESCRIBING THE NATURE OF INTERIOR WORK E XECUTED. I HAVE ALSO ENCLOSED COPIES OF RECEIPTS ISSUED BY THE CONTRACTO R ACKNOWLEDGING THE RECEIPT OF PAYMENTS. I HAVE ALSO ENCLOSED HEREW ITH THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE INTERIORS. IN SUPPORT OF SL NOS 2(F) AND 2(G), I HAVE ENCLOSED PROOF OF HOUSING LOAN INTEREST PAID. THEREFORE FOR EVERY RUPEE INVESTED ON THE RESIDENTI AL FLAT OF RS. 1,26,85,196 THERE IS SUPPORTING EVIDENCE. THERE FORE MY CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION U/S 54F IS BONAFIDE. THIS BEING THE CASE, IT IS VERY SURPRISING THAT HON 'BLE CIT APPEALS STATES NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WAS PRODUCED. HON'BLE CIT APPEALS SPEAKS OF RS. 15 LAKHS FOR INTE RIORS WHILE I HAVE SPENT RS. 25 LAKHS ON THE SAME. HON'BLE CIT APPEALS DOES NOT SPEAK ABOUT HOUSING LO AN INTEREST PAID. HIS SILENCE ON THE MATTER IS SURPRISING. HENCE IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACTS MENTIONED ABOVE I B EG YOUR GOOD SELVES TO ALLOW MY APPEAL FOR DEDUCTION U/S 54F. ITA NO.2481/BANG/2017 PAGE 3 OF 4 3. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LD. AR OF ASSESSEE THAT THE DISPUTE IS REGARDING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE U/S. 54F WHICH WAS ALLOWED BY CIT(A) T O THE EXTENT OF RS. 92,21,485/- AS AGAINST THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FO R RS. 96,48,574/-. HE SUBMITTED THAT THIS IS THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED EXPENSES ON INTERIOR DECORATION OF RS. 15 LAKHS AND RS. 10 LAKHS DURING THE PERIOD 15.12.2012 TO 31.03.2013 AND 01.04.2013 TO 3 1.07.2013 RESPECTIVELY. HE SUBMITTED THAT AS PER CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT SUBSTANTIATE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD INVESTED RS. 25 LAKHS FOR INTERIORS. HE SUBMITTED THAT THIS IS NOT CORRECT BECAUSE THE RELEVANT EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT O F THIS CLAIM HAS BEEN FILED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND ARE AVAILABLE IN P APER BOOK ALSO WHICH IS FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND IN PARTICULAR MY ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO PAGES 1B TO 1H OF THE PAPER BOOK AND IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THIS IS QUOTATION FROM DHAMODAR INTERIOR WORKS OF RS. 15 LAKHS ON PAGES 1B AND 1C, PAYMENT VOUCHERS ON PAGES 1D TO 1H BY WAY OF CASH OF RS. 5 LAKHS ON 15. 04.2013, RS. 5 LAKHS ON 30.05.2013, RS. 5 LAKHS ON 20.12.2012, ANOTHER RS. 5 LAKHS ON 30.01.2013 AND AGAIN RS. 5 LAKHS ON 22.02.2013 TOTALING RS. 25 LAKHS. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE RELEVANT CASH BOOK COPY IS ALSO AVAILABLE ON PAGES 3A AND 3B OF THE PAPER BOOK IN WHICH IT CAN BEEN SEEN THAT SUCH CASH PAYMENTS MADE ON THE RELEVANT DATES WERE DULY ACCOUNTED FOR AND EVEN AF TER THAT, THERE WAS CLOSING CASH BALANCE OF RS. 9,93,729.28/- AS ON 31.03.2013 TALLYING WITH THE BALANCE SHEET AVAILABLE ON PAGE NO. 2A OF THE PAPER BOOK. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT A BUSINESS MAN AND THEREFORE, THERE MAY BE SOME LAPSES ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO MAINTAIN PROPER DOCUMEN TS BUT IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE A LLOWED. THE LD. DR OF REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. 4. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. I FIND THAT AS PER THE QUOTATION FOR INTERIOR WORKS AVAILABLE ON PAGE NOS. 1B AND 1C OF THE PAPER BOOK, THE QUOTATION IS FOR MAKING WARDROBES IN ROOMS, LIVING HALL CABINETS, CABINETS IN KITCHEN, COST OF COTS, ELECTRICAL FITTINGS, CURTAIN S, SOFA SET,DINING TABLE SET, FALSE CEILINGS ETC. AND PAYMENT VOUCHERS ARE ALSO MADE AV AILABLE WHICH CONTAINS THE NAME OF THE RECEIVER ALSO. THIS IS NOT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT THE ITA NO.2481/BANG/2017 PAGE 4 OF 4 EXPENSES ON THESE ITEMS ARE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCT ION U/S 54F. THE CASE OF THE DEPARTMENT IS THIS ONLY THAT REQUIRED EVIDENCE IS N OT MADE AVAILABLE. EVEN IF SOME MORE EVIDENCE IS REQUIRED, THE ASSESSEE MAY BE ASKED TO PRODUCE CONCERNED VENDOR AND ENQUIRY MAY BE MADE FROM HIM A ND THEN ISSUE SHOULD BE DECIDED. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, I SET ASID E THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF AO FOR FRESH DECISION IN THE LIGHT OF ABOVE DISCUSSION AFTER PROVIDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO ASSESSEE. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENT IONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE. SD/- (ARUN KUMAR GARODIA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED, THE 19 TH JANUARY, 2018. /MS/ COPY TO: 1. APP ELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE.