Smt. Hema Harathi, Rep. by Mr. Koka Prabhakar Rao, CHENNAI V. ITO, CHENNAI

ITA 2922/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8304 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-01-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 13-10-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: R SIVARAMAN SHRI A
• Keywords: Capital asset; Additional evidence; Cost of acquisition
• Section: 54; 2

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH : CHENNAI . , . , BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./I.T.A. NO. 2922/MDS/2016. / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-2014. MRS. HEMA HARATHI REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER MR. KOKA PRABHAKAR RAO, A-4, FF-1, ISWARYA OZONE BAY, 58 TH STREET, THIRUVALLUVAR NAGAR, CHENNAI 600 041. VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD I(2) INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CHENNAI. [PAN AIQPH8226F] ( / APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) ! ' # / APPELLANT BY : SHRI. R. SIVARAMAN, ADVOCATE $% ! ' # /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI. A.V. SREEKANTH, IRS, JCIT & ' '( /DATE OF HEARING : 03-01-2017 )* ' '( /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11-01-2017 ! / O R D E R PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: IN THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DIRECTED AGA INST AN ORDER DATED 24.08.2016 OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E TAX (APPEALS)- 16, CHENNAI, SHE IS AGGRIEVED ON DENIAL OF EXEMPTI ON CLAIMED BY HER ITA NO.2922/MDS/2016. :- 2 -: U/S.54 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREIN AFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT). ONE OTHER GRIEVANCE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE I S ON REJECTION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN THE NATURE OF AGREEMENT FOR SALE FILED BEFORE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). 2. FACTS APROPOS ARE THAT ASSESSEE A NRI HAVING INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY, LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS AND FROM O THER SOURCES HAD FILED HER RETURN FOR IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR DECLA RING NIL INCOME. DURING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR, ASSESSEE HAD SOL D RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY FOR A CONSIDERATION OF D1.00 CRORE. AFTER DEDUCTING INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY, ASSESSEE HAD ARRIV ED LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS OF D71,03,270/-. EXEMPTION U/S.54 OF THE ACT WAS CLAIMED ON SUCH CAPITAL GAINS. AS PER THE ASSESSEE SHE HAD IN VESTED THE GAINS IN A HOUSE PROPERTY ON 15.09.2011. LD. ASSESSING OFFIC ER SOUGHT DETAILS FOR CLAIM OF ABOVE EXEMPTION. ACCORDING TO LD. ASSE SSING OFFICER, INVESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BASED ON WHICH SHE HAD PREFERRED CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S.54 OF THE ACT WAS DONE, MOR E THAN ONE YEAR PRIOR TO THE DATE OF TRANSFER OF THE RESIDENTIAL PR OPERTY GIVING RISE TO LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS AND ASSESSEE WAS NOT ELIGIB LE FOR THE CLAIM. IN REPLY, IT WAS STATED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT WHAT COUL D BE RECKONED AS THE DATE OF SALE WAS DATE ON WHICH POSSESSION WAS H ANDED OVER AND NOT THE DATE SHOWN IN THE SALE DEED. CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT FLAT WAS HANDED OVER TO THE BUYER ON 29.08.20 12, THOUGH THE ITA NO.2922/MDS/2016. :- 3 -: SALE DEED MENTIONED THE DATE OF SALE AS 15.11.2012. AS PER THE ASSESSEE WHEN POSSESSION WAS HANDOVER BY HER ALONG WITH ALL THE DOCUMENTS ON 29.08.2012, DATE OF TRANSFER RESULTING IN CAPITAL GAIN HAD TO BE CONSTRUED AS 29.08.2012. AS PER ASSESSEE, IF THE DATE OF POSSESSION WAS TAKEN AS DATE OF TRANSFER, INVESTME NT DONE ON 15.09.2011 WAS WITHIN THE ONE YEAR. 3. LD ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSI ONS OF THE ASSESSEE ACCEPTED HER CLAIM THAT FLAT ON WHICH SHE WAS CLAIMING EXEMPTION U/S.54 OF THE ACT WAS PURCHASED BY HER ON 15.09.2011. HOWEVER, ACCORDING TO HIM, THE PROPERTY WHICH WAS S OLD BY THE ASSESSEE ON WHICH LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS AROSE WAS BEYOND ONE YEAR FROM THE DATE OF INVESTMENT. AS PER LD. ASSESSING OFFICER, THE DATE OF SALE OF PROPERTY WAS 15.11.2012. THOUGH ASSESSEE C LAIMED THAT TRANSFER HAD TAKEN PLACE ON 29.08.2012, AS PER THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER THIS COULD NOT BE ACCEPTED, SINCE THERE W AS NO AGREEMENT FOR SALE ENTERED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH COULD SHOW HANDI NG OVER OF POSSESSION ALONGWITH DOCUMENTS ON 29.08.2012. FURTH ER, AS PER LD. ASSESSING OFFICER PAYMENTS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE ON SALE OF THE PROPERTY WERE ALL AFTER 29.08.2012 DATE ON WHICH PO SSESSION WAS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN GIVEN BY THE BUYER. THUS, ACC ORDING TO HIM, THE GAP BETWEEN INVESTMENT ON WHICH EXEMPTION U/S.54 OF THE ACT WAS ITA NO.2922/MDS/2016. :- 4 -: CLAIMED AND THE SALE OF THE PROPERTY ON WHICH LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS WERE COMPUTED WAS MORE THAN ONE YEAR. HE DISALLOWE D THE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S.54 OF THE ACT. 4. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE MOVED IN APPEAL BEFORE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THOUGH DATE OF SALE OF THE PROPERTY SHOWN IN SALE DEED 15.11.2012, POSSESSION WAS HANDED OVER TO THE BUYE R ON 29.08.2012 AND THEREFORE THE TRANSFER HAD ALREADY TAKEN PLACE ON 29.08.2012. ASSESSEE ALSO STATED BEFORE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INC OME TAX (APPEALS) THAT SHE HAD ENTERED INTO AGREEMENT FOR SALE ON 29. 08.2012 WHERE IT WAS MENTIONED THAT SHE HAD RECEIVED ADVANCE AND HAN DED OVER VACANT PHYSICAL POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY. AS PER ASSESSE E SHE COULD NOT FILE THIS EVIDENCE BEFORE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER SINCE I T WAS NOT READILY TRACEABLE. HOWEVER, LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) REFUSED TO ACCEPT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCOR DING TO HIM, AGREEMENT FOR SALE DATED 29.08.2012 PRODUCED BEFORE HIM WAS ONLY AN AFTER THOUGHT AND COULD NOT BE ACCEPTED. FURTHER, A CCORDING TO HIM, DATE OF TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ON WHICH CAPITAL GAINS HAD ARISEN WAS BEYOND ONE YEAR PERIOD FROM THE DATE OF ALLEGED INV ESTMENT ON WHICH EXEMPTION U/S.54 OF THE ACT WAS CLAIMED. HE THUS U PHELD THE ORDER OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER. ITA NO.2922/MDS/2016. :- 5 -: 5. NOW BEFORE US, LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE STRON GLY ASSAILING THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES SUBMI TTED THAT CLAUSE 7 OF THE SALE DEED DATED 15.11.2012 CLEARLY MENTIONED HA NDING OVER OF ORIGINAL TITLE DEED AND POSSESSION TO THE BUYER ON 29.08.2012. ACCORDING TO HIM, ASSESSEE HAD ALREADY RECEIVED ADV ANCE WELL PRIOR TO THE SAID DATE AND ALSO HANDED OVER POSSESSION. THUS, ACCORDING TO HIM, THE ACTUAL TRANSFER WAS EFFECTED ON 29.08.2012 . AS PER LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE LOWER AUTHORITIES OUGHT N OT HAVE BRUSHED ASIDE CLAUSE 7 OF THE REGISTERED SALE DEED IN THIS REGARD. FURTHER, ACCORDING TO HIM DEFINITION OF TRANSFER OF SECTION 2(47) OF THE ACT INCLUDED TRANSACTION INVOLVING ALLOWING OF THE POSS ESSION OF AN IMMOVABLE PROPERTY IN PART PERFORMANCE OF A CONTRAC T OF THE NATURE REFERRED TO IN SEC. 53A OF THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, 1882. . ARGUMENT OF THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE WAS T HAT THERE WAS AN AGREEMENT FOR SALE ENTERED ON 18.09.2012 WHICH TH OUGH PRODUCED WAS NOT CONSIDERED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E TAX (APPEALS). THE SAID AGREEMENT AS PER LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTA TIVE COULD NOT BE PRODUCED BEFORE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER SINCE IT WAS NOT READILY TRACEABLE, ASSESSEE BEING A NON-RESIDENT. IF THE DATE OF SALE OF PROPERTY WAS CONSIDERED AS 29.08.2012, THE ACQUISITION OF THE PR OPERTY ON WHICH EXEMPTION U/S.54 OF THE ACT WAS CLAIMED WHICH HAPPE NED ON ITA NO.2922/MDS/2016. :- 6 -: 15.09.2011 WAS WELL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR. T HUS, ACCORDING TO HIM, ASSESSEE WAS ELIGIBLE FOR CLAIMING EXEMPTION U /S.54 OF THE ACT. 6. PER CONTRA, LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE STRONG LY SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSE D THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. CLAIM OF THE ASSES SEE IS THAT SALE OF THE PROPERTY THOUGH IT IS MENTIONED IN THE REGISTER ED SALE DEED AS 15.11.2012, ACTUAL TRANSFER HAPPENED WHEN POSSESSIO N OF THE PROPERTY WAS HANDED OVER BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE PURCHASER ON 29.08.2012. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE ACQUISITION OF THE RE SIDENTIAL HOUSE BASED ON WHICH EXEMPTION U/S.54 OF THE ACT WAS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE HAPPENED ON 15.09.2011. DISPUTE IS ONLY REGARDING THE DATE OF TRANSFER OF THE PROPERTY GIVING RISE TO THE CAPITAL GAINS. SEC. 54 OF THE ACT IS RELEVANT HERE AND IT IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER :- (1) SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECTION (2), WHERE, IN THE CASE OF AN ASSESSEE BEING AN INDIVIDUAL OR A HINDU UNDIVIDED FAMILY THE CAPITAL GAIN ARISES FROM THE T RANSFER OF A LONG-TERM CAPITAL ASSET BEING BUILDINGS OR LAN DS APPURTENANT THERETO, AND BEING A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE, THE INCOME OF WHICH IS CHARGEABLE UNDER THE HEAD 'INCOM E FROM HOUSE PROPERTY' (HEREAFTER IN THIS SECTION REF ERRED TO AS THE ORIGINAL ASSET), AND THE ASSESSEE HAS WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR BEFORE OR TWO YEARS AFTER THE DA TE ON WHICH THE TRANSFER TOOK PLACE PURCHASED, OR HAS WIT HIN A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS AFTER THAT DATE CONSTRUCTED, A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE, THEN INSTEAD OF THE CAPITAL GAIN BEING CHARGED TO INCOME-TAX AS INCOME OF THE PREVIOUS YEA R IN WHICH THE TRANSFER TOOK PLACE, IT SHALL BE DEALT WI TH IN ITA NO.2922/MDS/2016. :- 7 -: ACCORDANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING PROVISIONS OF THIS SE CTION, THAT IS TO SAY,-- (I) IF THE AMOUNT OF THE CAPITAL GAIN IS GREATER THAN THE COST OF THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE SO PURCHASED OR CONSTRUCTED (HEREAFTER IN THIS SECTION REFERRED TO AS THE NEW ASSET), THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE AMOUNT OF THE CAPITAL GAIN AND THE COST OF THE NEW ASSET SHALL BE CHARGED UNDER SECTION 45 AS THE INCOME OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR; AND FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING IN RESPECT OF THE NEW ASSET ANY CAPITAL GAIN ARISING FROM ITS TRANSFER WITHIN A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS OF ITS PURCHASE OR CONSTRUCTION, AS THE CASE MAY BE, THE COST SHALL BE NIL; OR (II) IF THE AMOUNT OF THE CAPITAL GAIN IS EQUAL TO OR LESS THAN THE COST OF THE NEW ASSET, THE CAPITAL GAIN SHALL NOT BE CHARGED UNDER SECTION 45; AND FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING IN RESPECT OF THE NEW ASSET ANY CAPITAL GAIN ARISING FROM ITS TRANSFER WITHIN A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS OF ITS PURCHASE OR CONSTRUCTION, AS THE CASE MAY BE, THE COST SHALL BE REDUCED BY THE AMOUNT OF THE CAPITAL GAIN. WHEN THE ACQUISITION ON WHICH A CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S.54 OF THE ACT IS MADE IS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF TRANSFER OF AN ASSE T, THEN, THE OUTER LIMIT IS ONE YEAR BEFORE THE DATE OF SUCH TRANSFER. IF WE CONSIDER THE SALE OF THE PROPERTY ON WHICH CAPITAL GAINS AROSE TO HAVE H APPENED ON 15.11.2012 BEING THE DATE ON WHICH SALE DEED WAS RE GISTERED, THEN PURCHASE ON WHICH EXEMPTION WAS CLAIMED, WHICH HAP PENED ON 15.09.2011 FELL BEYOND ONE YEAR PERIOD. IF WE DEEM THE SALE OF THE PROPERTY ON WHICH CAPITAL GAINS HAD AROSE TO HAVE H APPENED 29.08.2012 THEN THE PURCHASE WAS WITHIN ONE YEAR PE RIOD MAKING THE ITA NO.2922/MDS/2016. :- 8 -: ASSESSEE ELIGIBLE EXEMPTION U/S.54F OF THE ACT. CL AUSE 7 OF SALE DEED DATED 15.11.2012 MENTIONS AS UNDER:- 7 . THE VENDOR HAS HANDED OVER ALL THE ORIGINAL TITLE DEEDS TO THE PURCHASER AND HAS PUT THE PURCHA SER IN VACANT POSSESSION OF THE SCHEDULE MENTIONED PROPERTY ON 29.08.2012, THE DATE ON WHICH THE FIRST ADVANCE WAS GIVEN BY THE PURCHASER TO THE VENDOR. HOWEVER, THE ACTUAL PAYMENTS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESS EE UPTO 29.08.2012 WAS NIL OR NEGLIGIBLE, IF ANY. THE SCHED ULE OF RECEIPTS OF ADVANCE TOTALLING D37,00,000/-, BY THE ASSESSEE, IS REFLECTED IN HER BANK STATEMENT FOR ACCOUNT NO.31352294238 WITH SBI. LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REPRODUCED THE GIST OF THESE ADVANCES. FOR BREVITY IT IS REPRODUCED ONCE AGAIN. SL.NO DATE AMOUNT IN D 1 14.09.2012 BY RTGS 200000 2 14.09.2012 BY RTGS 200000 3 14.09.2012 BY RTGS 200000 4 14.09.2012 BY RTGS 1000000 5 14.09.2012 BY RTGS 200000 6 14.09.2012 BY RTGS 200000 7 20.09.2012 BY CHE DEPOSIT 100000 8 02.11.2012 NEFT 500000 9 05.11.2012 NEFT 500000 10 08.11.2012 BY NEFT 100000 11 08.11.2012 BY RTGS 500000 TOTAL 37,00,000 THUS ON THE CLAIMED DATE OF GIVING POSSESSION VIZ. 29.08.2012, ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED NOTHING WHATSOEVER, IF WE CON SIDER THE TERMS OF ITA NO.2922/MDS/2016. :- 9 -: THE SALE DEED DATED 15.11.2012. CONSIDERATION IS M ENTIONED AT PARA 1 OF THE SAID SALE AGREEMENT AND THIS IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER:- 1. IN PURSUANCE OF THE ABOVE AGREEMENT AND IN CONSIDERATION OF THE SUM OF D1,00,00,000/- (RUPEES ONE CRORE ONLY) PAID BY THE PURCHASER TO THE VENDOR IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER. A. D37,00,000/- (RUPEES THIRTY SEVEN LAKH ONLY) PAID B Y THE PURCHASER TO THE VENDOR AS ADVANCE. B. D63,00,000/- (RUPEES SIXTY THREE LAKH ONLY) BEING T HE BALANCE SALE CONSIDERATION PAID BY WAY OF CHEQUE NO.295906, DATED 09.11.2012, DRAWN ON HDFC BANK ISSUED BY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LIMITED FAVOURING THE VENDOR, BY WAY OF HOUSING LOA N TO THE PURCHASER HEREIN ON THE SCHEDULE MENTIONED PROPERTY. THE RECEIPT OF D1,00,00,000/- (RUPEES ONE CRORE ONL Y) WHICH HAS BEEN REALIZED BY THE VENDOR HEREIN, TOWARDS THE TOTAL SALE CONSIDERATION OF THE SCHEDULE MENTIONED PROPER TY AND HAVE RELEASED THE PURCHASER FROM FURTHER PAYMENT TH EREOF. THE TOTAL AMOUNT BEING D1.00 CRORE AND D63.00 LAKHS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 09.11.2012, THE SUM OF D37.00 LAKHS MENTIONED THE CLAUSE ABOVE, IS THE PAYMENTS EFFEC TED BY THE BUYER TO THE ASSESSEE ON VARIOUS DATES STARTING 14.09.201 2 TO 08.11.2012. IN OTHER WORDS, IF ASSESSEES VERSION IS TO BE BELI EVED, WE HAVE TO ACCEPT THAT ASSESSEE HAD PARTED WITH THE POSSESSION ON 29.08.2012 WITHOUT RECEIVING ANY ADVANCE. 8 . NOW COMING TO THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN THE NATU RE OF AN AGREEMENT OF SALE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE LD. COMMISSIONER ITA NO.2922/MDS/2016. :- 10 -: OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), WHEREIN A SUM OF D1.00 L AKH WAS SHOWN AS PAID AS ADVANCE ON 18.09.2012 TO ONE SMT. DR. K. S UREKHA, POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER OF THE ASSESSEE, RELEVANT CLAUSE (2 ) OF THIS AGREEMENT IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER:- AS ON DATE THE PURCHASER HEREIN HAS PAID A SUM OF D1,00,000/- (RUPEES ONE LAKH ONLY) BY WAY OF CHEQUE NO.126780, DRAWN ON HSCB BANK, GURGAON BRANCH, DATED 29.08.2012 TO MRS. DR. K. SUREKHA AND A FURTH ER AMOUNT OF D20,00,000/- (RUPEES TWENTY LAKHS ONLY) BY WAY OF RTG TRANSFER TO THE SBI NRO A/C. CHENNAI OF MRS. DR. K. SUREKHA, THE VENDOR HEREIN AND THE VEND OR HEREIN RECEIVED THE SAME TOWARDS ADVANCE AMOUNT FOR THE SCHEDULE MENTIONED PROPERTY AND THE VENDOR HEREIN DOTH HEREBY ADMIT AND ACKNOWLEDGE THE RECEIP T OF THE SAME AND THIS IS THE RECEIPT FOR THE SAID AD VANCE AMOUNT PAID BY THE PURCHASER. THIS IS AT GROSS VARIANCE WITH WHAT IS MENTIONED I N THE REGISTERED SALE DEED DATED 15.11.2012 AND ALSO THE RECEIPTS RECORDE D IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE REFLECTING THE ADVANCE RECE IPTS FROM THE BUYER. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, LD. COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX (APPEALS) IN OUR OPINION WAS JUSTIFIED IN TAKING A VIEW THAT THE AGREEMENT FOR SALE WAS ONLY AN AFTER THOUGHT. 9 . COMING TO THE CLAIM OF THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRE SENTATIVE THAT THERE WAS TRANSFER WITHIN THE MEANING 2(47)(V) OF THE ACT, IN OUR OPINION, PART PERFORMANCE CONTEMPLATED UNDER SECTI ON 53A OF THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, 1882 WOULD NOT BRING WITH IN ITS AMBIT, A CASE ITA NO.2922/MDS/2016. :- 11 -: WHERE NO CONSIDERATION HAD PASSED FROM THE BUYER TO THE SELLER. IT WOULD BE NAVE TO BELIEVE THAT POSSESSION OF A PROP ERTY HAVING VALUE OF D1.00 CRORE WAS PARTED, WITHOUT RECEIVING ANY ADVA NCE OR FOR A NOMINAL ADVANCE. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT LOWER AUTHORITIES WERE JUSTIFIED IN TREATING THE SA LE TO HAVE HAPPENED ON 15.11.2012 BEING THE DATE MENTIONED IN THE REGIS TERED SALE DEED WHICH WAS WELL BEYOND THE ONE YEAR PERIOD, THE DAT E ON WHICH INVESTMENT IN HOUSE PROPERTY WAS MADE BY THE ASSESS EE. WE THEREFORE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDERS O F THE LOWER AUTHORITIES DENYING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE U/S.54 OF THE ACT . WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDERS OF THE LOWE R AUTHORITIES. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMI SSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JANU ARY, 2017, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . ) (G. PAVAN KUMAR) $ % / JUDICIAL MEMBER ( . ) (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) & % / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER +& / CHENNAI , / DATED:11TH JANUARY, 2017. KV - ' $'./ 0/' / COPY TO: 1 . ! / APPELLANT 3. 1' () / CIT(A) 5. /45 $'6 / DR 2. $% ! / RESPONDENT 4. 1' / CIT 6. 57 8& / GF