ITO 25(2)(2), MUMBAI V. MAHENDRA N SHAH (HUF), MUMBAI

ITA 5041/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 504119914 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-06-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 21-04-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 04-07-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RADHA K NARANGDR
• Assessee Lawyers: M SUBRAMANIAN
• Keywords: Cost of acquisition
• Section: 54F

Judgement Text

, , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES B, MUMBAI , , , BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI RAJENDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.5041/MUM/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 ITO 25(2)(2), C-11 BLDG, R. NO.106, PRATYAKSHKAR BHAVAN, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, BANDRA (E), MUMBAI-400051 / VS. SHRI MANHENDRA N SHAH, E-123, VRINDAVAN, RAMBAUG LANE, S.V.ROAD, BORIVALI (W), MUMBAI-400066 ( / REVENUE) ( !' # /ASSESSEE) P.A. NO.A CSPM6344F / REVENUE BY MS. RADHA K. NARANG-DR !' # / ASSESSEE BY SHRI M. SUBRAMANIAN $ % & # ' / DATE OF HEARING : 18/06/2015 & # ' / DATE OF ORDER: 01/07/2015 / O R D E R PER JOGINDER SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER DAT ED 25/04/2013 OF THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, MU MBAI. THE ONLY GROUND RAISED PERTAINS TO THE DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.18,20,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF EXPENSES INCURRED T OWARDS ALTERATION/ADDITION TO THE NEW PROPERTY PURCHASED A ND SHRI MANHENDRA N SHAH ITA NO.5041/MUM/2013 2 CLAIMING EXEMPTION U/S 54F AND 54EC OF THE INCOME T AX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER THE ACT). 2. DURING THE HEARING OF THIS APPEAL, LD. DR, MS. RADHA K. NARANG, DEFENDED THE CONCLUSION ARRIVED AT IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER BY CONTENDING THAT THE CLAIM WAS WRO NGLY MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AS FOR SEEKING EXEMPTION UNDER THE IMPUGNED SECTIONS THE ASSESSEE HAS TO EITHER PURCHA SE THE PROPERTY OR CONSTRUCT THE PROPERTY, THUS, THE EXPEN SES INCURRED FOR MAKING ADDITION/ALTERATION IN THE NEW PROPERTY IS NOT PERMISSIBLE FOR CLAIM EXEMPTION. O N THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, SHRI M. SUBRAMANIAN, DEFENDED THE CONCLUSION ARRIVED AT IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 2.1. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE FACTS , IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE, AN INDIVIDUAL, SOLD A PROPERTY FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.89,91,000/- AND AFTER CLA IMING INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION, CLAIMED CAPITAL GAIN A T RS.80,31,860/-. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED EXEMPTION U/S 54F OF THE ACT AND 54EC OF THE ACT AND OFFERED THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AT NIL. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER ASKE D THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE DETAILS OF DEDUCTION ALONG WITH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED THE N EW PROPERTY AT RS.38,22,000/- AND CLAIMED INVESTMENT I N THE NEW PROPERTIES FOR RS.58,47,260/-. THE ASSESSEE CL AIMED THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.18,20,000/- WAS INCURRED FOR MAKING ADDITIONS/ALTERATIONS IN THE NEW PROPERTY. THE SHRI MANHENDRA N SHAH ITA NO.5041/MUM/2013 3 ASSESSEE PURCHASED A FLAT FROM A BUILDER AND IN THE SAID FLAT REQUIRED FACILITIES WERE NOT AVAILABLE. THE E XTRA AMOUNT WAS INCURRED FOR PLUMBING WORK, FLOORING, ELECTRIC WIRING, KITCHEN WORK AND PAINTING OF THE NEW FLAT. THE NEW FLAT WAS IN FACT IN A RAW CONDITION AND WAS LACKING SUCH FACILITIES WHICH WERE NECESSARY FOR INHABITATION. T HE ASSESSEE ALSO INVESTED RS.22 LAKH IN BONDS. ADMITT EDLY, IN THE ABSENCE OF THE EXPENSES INCURRED IN THE NEW PRO PERTY, IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE TO LIVE THERE. THE ASSESSEE DUL Y PRODUCED THE AGREEMENT MADE WITH THE BUILDER. PAYM ENT OF THE IMPUGNED AMOUNT TO THE BUILDER IS ALSO NOT I N DISPUTE. THE ADDITION/ALTERATION MADE IN THE HOUSE WAS A NECESSARY REQUIREMENT FOR MAKING IT SUITABLE FOR RE SIDENTIAL PURPOSES. TOTALITY OF FACTS, CLEARLY INDICATES THA T THE NEW PROPERTY WAS ACQUIRED WITHIN THE PERMISSIBLE TIME O UT OF THE SALE PROCEEDS OF THE EXISTING PROPERTIES THUS, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE CONCLUSION DRAWN BY THE LD. COMMIS SIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), CONSEQUENTLY, THE APPEAL O F THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. FINALLY, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. THIS ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IN THE PRESENCE OF LD. REPRESENTATIVES FROM BOTH SIDES AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING ON18/06/2015. SD/ - (RAJENDRA) SD/ - (JOGINDER SINGH) '# / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER $# / JUDICIAL MEMBER $ % MUMBAI; ( DATED : 01/07/2015 F{X~{T? P.S/. . . SHRI MANHENDRA N SHAH ITA NO.5041/MUM/2013 4 %$&'()(*& / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. *+,- / THE APPELLANT 2. ./,- / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 0 0 $ 1# ( *+ ) / THE CIT, MUMBAI. P4. 0 0 $ 1# / CIT(A)- , MUMBAI 5. 34 .# , 0 *+' * 5 , $ % / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. 6! 7% / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, /3+# .# //TRUE COPY// / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , $ % / ITAT, MUMBAI