1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH SMC, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI P. K. BANSAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.328/LKW/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2006-07 SHRI AMIT KUMAR BANSAL, K87, SECTOR-D, ASHIANA COLONY, KANPUR ROAD, LUCKNOW. PAN:ABHPB8470D VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, RANGE-3(1), LUCKNOW. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI PIYUSH KUMAR, C.A. RESPONDENT BY SHRI AMIT NIGAM, D. R. DATE OF HEARING 19/10/2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 21/10/2016 O R D E R THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-I, LUCKNOW DATED 09/03/2011 RELATING TO ASSES SMENT YEAR 2006- 2007. 2. THE ONLY ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL RELATES T O THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION BY THE ASSESSEE U/S 54 OF THE I.T. ACT. 3. THE FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE AS SESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EARNED LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AMOUNTING TO RS.8,34,720/- DURING THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR I N RESPECT OF WHICH THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED EXEMPTION U/S 54 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT IT HAS INVESTED A SUM OF RS.16,08,620/- FOR THE PUR CHASE OF PLOT WHICH WAS 2 BOUGHT BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOUSE. IT WAS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD THE PLOT ON 21/08/2006. THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID A SUM OF RS.15,57,560/- TOWARDS THE BASIC COST OF TH E LAND UPTO 01/07/2006 FOR AVANTIKA EXTENSION, GHAZIABAD AND AS PER THE OFFER THE ASSESSEE HAS TO PAY BALANCE SUM OF RS.81,976/- AT T HE TIME OF POSSESSION. THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED THE POSSESSION OF THE PLOT ON 06/01/2009. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT IT HAD STARTED THE CONSTRUCTIO N ON THE ABOVE PLOT ON 25/01/2009 AND COMPLETED THE CONSTRUCTION IN JUNE, 2009. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SUBMITTED ANY EVIDENCE IN RESPECT OF THE ST ART OF THE CONSTRUCTION OR THE COMPLETION OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOUSE. WE NOTED FROM THE LETTER OF THE GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY DATED 04/02/2009 THAT THE MAP OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE START OF THE CONSTRUCTI ON HAS NOT BEEN APPROVED. THE GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY HAS PUT THE FOLLOWING FOUR OBJECTIONS: (I) COPIES OF SOME OF THE SALE DEED ARE NOT DULY ATTEST ED (II) SAID BACK IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULES. (III) PLAN IS FULL OF ERRORS (IV) ON THE IMPUGNED LOCATION AS PER MASTER PLAN 2012, T HE WIDTH OF THE ROAD HAS TO BE MADE FROM 45 MTRS TO 24 MTRS AND THEREFORE, THE MAP CAN BE APPROVED ONLY AFTER T HE WIDTH OF THE ROAD IS REDUCED TO 24 MTRS. THIS DOCUMENT ITSELF PROVES THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS N OT COMPLETED THE CONSTRUCTION WITHIN A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS AS IS RE QUIRED U/S 54 OF THE ACT. IN MY OPINION, THE CONSTRUCTION CANNOT BE SAID TO H AVE BEEN COMPLETED WITHIN THREE YEARS. EVEN IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED THE MAP FOR SANCTION BEFORE THE GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHO RITY ON 24/01/2009. WITHOUT SANCTION OF THE MAP THE ASSESSEE CANNOT COM PLETE THE CONSTRUCTION. IN VIEW OF THIS FACT, I DO NOT FIND A NY INFIRMITY OR ILLEGALITY IN 3 THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN SUSTAINING THE DISALLOWANCE M ADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOT GRANTING THE DEDUCTION TO THE ASSESSEE U/S 54 OF THE ACT. EVEN THE ASSESSEE IN HIS SUBMISSIONS ITSELF STATED THAT IT HAS COMPLETED THE CONSTRUCTION ENDING 2009 WHICH IS AFTER THE EXPIRY OF THREE YEARS FROM THE DATE WHEN THE PLOT AT LUCKNOW WAS SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE I.E. ON 21/03/2006. I, THEREFORE, CONFIRM THE ORDER OF CIT (A) AND DISMISS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21/10/2016) SD/. ( P. K. BANSAL ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED:21/10/2016 *SINGH COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR