Samrat Mukherjee, Legal Heir of Late Arun Mukherjee, Kolkata V. ITO, Ward-1(4), Durgapur

ITA 518/KOL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6146 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-08-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 17-03-2017
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Competent authority
• Section: 143(3); 54F; 54; 2

Judgement Text

ARUN MUKHERJEE I.T.A NO.518/KOL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 PAGE | 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH: KOLKATA BEFORE: SHRI P. M. JAGTAP, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A NO.518/KOL/2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14) ARUN MUKHERJEE(SINCE DECD.) APPELLANT (REPRESENTED BY L/R SAMRAT MUKHERJI & RONITA MUKHERJEE) [PAN:AEAPM1883P] VS ITO, WARD-1(4), DURGAPUR RESPONDENT FOR THE APPELLANT : SHRI J.P. KHAITAN & G. BANERGY, FCA FOR THE RESPONDENT : SHRI C. J. SINGH, JCIT, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 17.06.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 07.08.2019 ORDER SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 19.01.2016 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), DURGAPUR [CIT(A)] FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14. 2. THE ONLY ISSUE IS TO BE DECIDED AS TO WHETHER THE CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF CLAIM U/S 54 OF THE ACT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 3. HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS A DOCTOR BY PROFESSION AND FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING GROSS TOTAL INCOME OF RS.6,62,765/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE SCRUTINY PROCEEDINGS DETERMINED THE TOTAL INCOME OF ASSESSEE AT RS.1,13,94,070/- VIDE ITS ARUN MUKHERJEE I.T.A NO.518/KOL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 PAGE | 2 ORDER U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. IT IS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED ALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION U/S 54 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON AN EXAMINATION AND VERIFICATION OF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE DENIED ALLOWANCE OF CLAIM U/S 54 ONLY ON THE REASON THAT NON-SUBMISSION OF REGISTERED PURCHASE DEED FOR THE REASONS STATED HEREUNDER: THE MOU STATES THAT SHRI ARUN MUKHERJEE, SHRI SAMRAT MUKHERJI, MS. RONITA MUKHERJI AND SMT. ANJANA MUKHERJEE COLLECTIVELY HAVE AGREED TO PURCHASE TWO RESIDENTIAL APARTMENTS, ONE OF 2375 SQ.FT AND THE OTHER OF 1200 SQ. FT AND TWO CAR PARKING SPACES AGAINST A CONSIDERATION OF RS.3,07,50,000/-. THE ASSESSEE IN HIS REPLY DATED 27.01.2016 STATED THAT THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN PURCHASED IN THE NAME OF ALL THESE PERSONS FOR THE SAKE OF EASE OF SUCCESSION. BOTH THE ASSESSEE AND M/S HI-RISE APARTMENT MAKERS PVT. LTD COULD NOT ELABORATE THE OWNERSHIP STATUS AND THE BREAK-UP OF PRICES IN RESPECT OF ALL THE UNITS MENTIONED ABOVE. THE NAME OF THREE PERSONS JUST FOR THE SAKE OF EASE OF SUCCESSION IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. IT HAS ALSO BEEN OBSERVED THAT THE SAID BANK ACCOUNT OF HDFC BANK FROM WHICH THE PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE TO THE DEVELOPERS IS IN JOINT NAME AND THAT THE JOINT HOLDER IS SHRI SAMRAT MUKHERJI. THIS QUESTIONS THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF COMPLETE RIGHTS OVER THE PROPERTY IN ABSENCE OF ANY REGISTERED PURCHASE DEED. IT MAY BE SO THAT COMPLETE RIGHTS ARE BEING CLAIMED JUST FOR THE PURPOSE OF CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 54. 4. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE DENIAL OF CLAIM OF ALLOWANCE U/S 54 OF THE ACT BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE VIEW OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY OBSERVING THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH THE BREAK-UP OF EACH UNIT AND THERE WAS NO POSSESSION ENSURED WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED LIMIT. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF CIT(A) IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER: IT IS PERTINENT TO MENTION HERE THAT ON THE DATE OF AGREEMENT THE APPELLANT NEVER ENSURE THE TIME OF DELIVERY OR THE STATUS OF THE CONSTRUCTION AND ITS COMPLETION. THE TIME LIMIT PRESCRIBED IN THE ACT FOR 54F AND MOU WAS NEVER ADHERED TOO. IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT CLAUSE MENTIONS IN THE MOU WERE NEVER ADHERE TOO. THE ONLY ARGUMENT OF THE APPELLANT DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS IS THAT THE SUBSTANTIAL PAYMENT HAS BEEN MADE WITHIN TWO YEARS, THEREFORE HE DESERVES FOR EXEMPTION IS NOT WITH THE SPIRIT OF THE PROVISION OF SECTION 54F. IT IS FURTHER TO POINTED OUT THAT THE OBSERVATION OF THE A.O. REGARDING COMPLETION OF THE BUILDING HAS NOT BEEN CONTROVERTED. THE A.O. OBSERVED THAT ONLY 39% OF THE FULL VALUE OF THE CONSTRUCTION HAS BEEN PAID AGAINST THE PROPOSED PURCHASE OF PROPERTY. IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT THE FLAT PROPOSED TO BE PURCHASED IS HAVING MULTIPLE UNITS WHICH CANNOT BE SAID TO BE 'A HOUSE'. THE APPELLANT ALSO FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT THE DELAY IN POSSESSION WAS NOT ATTRIBUTABLE BY THE APPELLANT AND IT WAS ARUN MUKHERJEE I.T.A NO.518/KOL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 PAGE | 3 BEYOND CONTROL OF THE APPELLANT. IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT THE AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE OF PROPOSED FLAT IS MADE UNILATERALLY WITHOUT ANY MUTUAL LIABILITY CLAUSE. THE BUILDER IS NOT CASTED UPON ANY BURDEN FOR NOT GIVING DELIVERY IN TIME. FROM THE BEGINNING OF INVESTMENT IT IS SEEN THAT THE APPELLANT NEVER BOTHERED ABOUT CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSE WITHIN PRESCRIBED PERIOD. THE INVESTMENT, WHICH IS CLAIMED TO BE MADE BY VARIOUS FAMILY MEMBER OR JOINT OWNERSHIP, WAS SUBJECT TO VARIOUS CONDITIONS, WHICH WERE PRE CONDITION OF THE CONSTRUCTION WITH THE BUILDER, WERE YET TO BE FULFILLED. ONLY 39% INVESTMENT OF ENTIRE PROPOSED PURCHASE IS MADE WHICH ALSO INCLUDES THE CAPITAL GAIN AMOUNT. WHEREAS THERE ARE MANY SHARE HOLDERS NAMELY SHRI SAMRAT MUKHERJEE, ARUN MUKHERJEE, RONITA MUKHERJEE AND SMT. ANJANA MUKHERJEE, THERE IS NO COMPLETE OWNERSHIP OF THE APPELLANT. AS THERE WAS PURCHASE OF VARIOUS UNITS, THE BREAK-UP OF EACH UNIT WAS NOT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE A.O. THE ENTIRE AGREEMENT IS OF RS.3,07,50,000/- WHERE AS THERE ARE FOUR OWNERS NAMELY SHRI ARUN MUKHERJEE, SHRI SAMRAT MUKHERJEE, MRS. RONITA MUKHERJEE AND SMT. ANJANA MUKHERJEE. OUT OF TOTAL COST ONLY RS.1,50,00,000/- HAS BEEN PAID IF IT IS DISTRIBUTED AMONG ALL FOUR IT COMES TO RS.37.50 LAKHS ONLY WHICH CAN NEVER BE SAID THAT ENTIRE AMOUNT OF CAPITAL GAIN HAD BEEN INVESTED RATHER APPELLANT HAS FINALIZED OTHER CO-OWNERS. THE A.O. HAS FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE CONDITION MENTIONED IN THE MOU HAS NOT BEEN COMPLIED EVEN AFTER LAPSE OF MENTIONED TIME IN THE MOU. 5. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE IS BEFORE US CHALLENGING THE ACTION OF CIT(A) IN DENYING DEDUCTION U/S 54 OF THE ACT. THE LD. AR FILED PAPER BOOK CONTAINING PAGES 1 TO 144 ALONG WITH THE DETAILS OF CHRONOLOGICAL EVENTS. IT IS NOTED FROM THE RECORD THAT THE ASSESSEE OBTAINED LAND AT DURGAPUR ON LEASE FROM GOVERNMENT OF WEST BENGAL ON 24.05.1980 AND SUBSEQUENTLY CONSTRUCTED A RESIDENTIAL BUILDING THEREON. THE ASSESSEE ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT OF SALE WITH FAISAL RASHID FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.1.80 CRORES ON 15.02.2012 AND IN THE SAME YEAR THE ASSESSEE ENTERED INTO AN MOU DATED 16.07.2012 WITH HI-RISE APARTMENTS MAKERS PRIVATE LIMITED HEREAFTER FOR SHORT BUILDER/DEVELOPER FOR PURCHASE OF TWO FLATS FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.3,07,50,000/-. WE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT THE FLAT WITH A SUPER BUILT-UP AREA OF APPROXIMATELY 2,375 SQ. FT FOR HIMSELF AND ANOTHER FLAT TO AN EXTENT OF RS.1,200 SQ. FT FOR HIS SON FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.2,00,75,000/- AND 1,06,75,000/- RESPECTIVELY. THEREFORE THE CAPITAL GAIN OF RS.1,07,06,885/- ARUN MUKHERJEE I.T.A NO.518/KOL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 PAGE | 4 DETERMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE INDEX COST, IMPROVEMENT AND EXPENSES RELATING TO TRANSFER AND THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 54 OF THE ACT CLAIMING THE CAPITAL GAIN ARISING OUT OF SELLING OF HIS PROPERTY IN DURGAPUR HAVING INVESTED FULLY IN THE NEW ASSET BEING VALUE OF RS.2,0075,000/- WITHIN TWO YEARS FROM THE DATE OF SANCTION PLAN. 6. ACCORDING TO ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT SUBMIT THE PURCHASE DEED IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE VIEW OF ASSESSING OFFICER BY OBSERVING THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FILE THE BREAK-UP OF THE TWO FLATS IN THE FIRST APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, BEFORE US THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN THE BREAK-UP OF THE TWO FLATS I.E. THE TOTAL CONSIDERATION FOR FLAT HAVING SUPER BUILT-UP AREA AT RS.2,00,75,000/- AND 1,06,75,000/- FOR FLAT HAVING APPROXIMATE SUPER BUILT-UP AREA OF RS.1,200 SQ. FT. SO THERE IS NO DISPUTE ABOUT THE OBSERVATION OF CIT(A) THAT THERE WAS NO BREAK-UP GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE. 7. COMING TO THE OBSERVATION OF ASSESSING OFFICER, IT IS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED A LETTER DATED 01.11.2017 ISSUED BY THE BUILDER/DEVELOPER WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGE NO.108 OF PAPER BOOK STATING THAT THEY HAVE RECEIVED THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE ON 16.10.2017 FROM THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY AND STARTED HANDING OVER FOR INTERNAL DECORATION, COLOURING ETC. TO RESPECTIVE FLAT OWNERS CLEARLY ESTABLISHES THAT THERE WAS A DELAY IN CONSTRUCTION DUE TO VARIOUS REASONS WHICH WERE BEYOND THE CONTROL OF DEVELOPER/BUILDER. WE FIND THAT THERE WAS A DELAY OF CONSTRUCTION AND HANDING OVER THE POSSESSION OF FLATS TO THE ASSESSEE. 8. THE LD. AR PLACED RELIANCE IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SMT. B.S. SHANTHAKUMARI REPORTED IN [2015] 60 TAXMANN.COM 74(KARNATAKA) AND SUBMITTED BY REFERRING TO PARA NO.8 OF SUCH ORDER THAT THE ARUN MUKHERJEE I.T.A NO.518/KOL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 PAGE | 5 ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE INVESTED ENTIRE CAPITAL GAIN WITHIN STIPULATED PERIOD AND SO THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO GET THE BENEFIT U/S 54 OF THE ACT. FURTHER HE SUBMITTED MERELY BECAUSE THE CONSTRUCTION WAS NOT COMPLETE IN ALL RESPECTS OR SUCH BUILDINGS IS YET TO BE COMPLETED FULLY OR THE BUILDINGS NOT BEING IN A FIT CONDITION FOR BEING OCCUPIED, WOULD BY ITSELF NOT BE A GROUND FOR THE ASSESSEE TO BE DENIED THE BENEFIT U/S 54 OF THE ACT. 9. FURTHER HE PLACED RELIANCE IN THE CASE OF SMT. SABITA DEVI AGARWAL VS. ITO REPORTED IN [2019] 104 TAXMANN.COM 12 (KOLKATA- TRIB.) AND BY REFERRING TO PARA NO.7.5 OF SUCH ORDER SUBMITTED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 54 OF THE ACT IS TO BE ALLOWED IF THE ASSESSEE INVESTS THE SALE CONSIDERATION TOWARDS PURCHASE OF A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY OR FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY, THOUGH, THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOUSE PROPERTY IS NOT COMPLETED WITHIN THE STIPULATED PERIOD OF THREE YEARS. 10. FURTHER, SRI J.P KHAITAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE SUBMITS THAT THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. BHARTI C KHOTARI [2000] 244 ITR 353 (CAL) HELD THAT THE BASIC REQUIREMENT FOR PURPOSE OF RELIEF U/S 54 IS THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD INVEST THE SALE PROCEEDS IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. 11. IN REPLY, SHRI C.J. SINGH, SENIOR DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, PLACED RELIANCE IN THE CASE OF RASIKLAL M PARIKH VS. ACIT REPORTED IN [2017] 88 TAXMANN.COM 732 (BOMBAY) AND SUBMITS THAT THE DEVELOPER DID NOT CONFER ANY TITLE ON THE ASSESSEE AND NO POSSESSION WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE WITHIN STIPULATED PERIOD OF THREE YEARS, WHEN THERE IS NO TITLE AND POSSESSION AS REQUIRED BY THE STATUTE TO THE ASSESSEE, THE DEDUCTION U/S 54 IS NOT PERMISSIBLE. FURTHER HE REFERRED TO THE ORDER OF HYDERABAD TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MAHESH MALNEEDI VS. ITO REPORTED IN [2018] 90 TAXMANN.COM 171 ARUN MUKHERJEE I.T.A NO.518/KOL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 PAGE | 6 (HYDERABAD TRIB.) AND SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO PROOF OF SALE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE ALL THE AUTHORITIES INCLUDING THIS TRIBUNAL AND THERE IS NO PROOF SHOWING THAT THE COMPLETION OF FLAT BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES, WHEN THERE IS NO SUCH EVIDENCE, THE DEDUCTION U/S 54 IS NOT AVAILABLE. 12. FURTHER HE PLACED RELIANCE IN THE CASE OF YASHOVARDHAN SINHA V. ITO REPORTED IN [2016] 65 TAXMANN.COM 31 (PATNA TRIB.) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO HAVE ENTERED INTO MOU ON 16.07.12 AND THE ASSESSEE MUST HAVE GOT POSSESSION OF SAID FLAT WITHIN THREE YEARS BUT NO SUCH COMPLETION PROOF WAS FILED BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ENTRUSTED INSPECTION OF SAID BUILDING TO THE INCOME TAX INSPECTOR FOR VERIFICATION OF STATUS OF CONSTRUCTION OF SAID BUILDING. HE REFERRED TO INSPECTORS REPORT PLACED AT PAGE NO.103 OF PAPER BOOK AND SUBMITTED THE REPORT FILED BY THE INSPECTOR CLEARLY SHOWS NON-COMPLETION OF SAID BUILDING AND IT IS ONLY THE BRICK WORK IS IN PROGRESS AND ARGUED THAT WHEN THE CONSTRUCTION IS NOT COMPLETED, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED TO GET DEDUCTION U/S 54 OF THE ACT. 13. FURTHER SRI C.J. SINGH PLACED RELIANCE IN THE CASE OF SMT. USHARANI KALIDINDI V. ITO REPORTED IN [2013] 37 TAXMANN.COM 360 (HYDERABAD TRIB.) AND ARGUED THAT THE DEDUCTION U/S 54 OF THE ACT IS AVAILABLE ONLY WHEN THE CONSTRUCTION IS COMPLETED AS A HOUSE WHEN SUCH HOUSE BECOMES HABITABLE. 14. HAVING CONSIDERED THE CASE LAWS AS REFERRED BY THE LD. AR AND DR, WE FIND THAT THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. BHARTI C KHOTARI [2000] 244 ITR 353 (CAL) HELD THAT THE BASIC REQUIREMENT FOR PURPOSE OF RELIEF U/S 54 IS THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD INVEST THE SALE PROCEEDS IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO HAVE ARUN MUKHERJEE I.T.A NO.518/KOL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 PAGE | 7 PURCHASED A FLAT FOR RS.2,00,75,000/- WHICH IS MORE THAN THE SALE PROCEEDS AND THE CAPITAL GAIN DETERMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THEREFORE, IN OUR OPINION THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO GET OF CLAIM OF ALLOWANCE U/S 54 OF THE ACT. 15. ON PERUSAL OF THE DECISION OF HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AND DECISION OF COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO CLAIM ALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION U/S 54 OF THE ACT ONLY FOR THE REASON THAT THE WHOLE CAPITAL GAIN HAS BEEN INVESTED IN PURCHASING A FLAT HAVING SUPER BUILT-UP ARE OF 2,375 SQ. FT FOR HIMSELF. 16. COMING TO THE OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPECT OF NON-SUBMISSION OF PURCHASE DEED BY THE ASSESSEE SHOWING THE TITLE OF ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF SAID FLAT APPROXIMATELY HAVING 2,375 SQ. FT FOR HIMSELF. WE NOTE THAT THERE WAS A LETTER DATED 01.11.2017 ISSUED BY BUILDER/DEVELOPER TO THE ASSESSEE STATING THAT THE RESIDENTIAL FLATS ARE BEING HANDED OVER FOR INTERNAL DECORATION, COLOURING ETC. TO THE RESPECTIVE FLAT OWNERS SOMETIME IN MAY, 2017 ONWARDS. THE ASSESSEE MUST HAVE GOT TITLE DEED REGISTERED IN HIS FAVOUR BY NOW, BESIDES OTHER EVIDENCES I.E. MUTATION IN MUNICIPAL RECORDS, PROPERTY ASSESSMENT, WATER ASSESSMENT AND ELECTRICITY ASSESSMENT ETC. AND WE FIND NO SUCH DOCUMENTS BEFORE US SHOWING HIS TITLE ON THE SAID FLAT EVEN TILL THE YEAR 2019. THEREFORE WE AGREE WITH THE OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPECT OF NON- SUBMISSION OF THE TITLE DEED, EVEN BEFORE ALL THE AUTHORITIES BELOW INCLUDING THIS TRIBUNAL. IN OUR OPINION, IN ORDER TO CLAIM ALLOWANCE U/S 54 OF THE ACT, THE PROOF OF PAYMENT OF CONSIDERATION IS COMPLETE WHEN IT IS COUPLED WITH THE ABOVE MENTIONED EVIDENCES TO PROVE THE TITLE ON PROPERTY AND CONSEQUENTLY POSSESSION THEREON. THEREFORE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE DEEM IT PROPER TO REMAND THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER WITH A LIBERTY TO THE ASSESSEE TO FILE SUCH DOCUMENTS SHOWING TRANSFER OF RIGHT OVER SUCH FLAT IN RESPECT OF HIS ARUN MUKHERJEE I.T.A NO.518/KOL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 PAGE | 8 CLAIM U/S 54 OF THE ACT, BY HOLDING THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO GET DEDUCTION U/S 54 SUBJECT TO SHOWING PROOF OF SALE DEED ETC. IN FAVOUR OF HIM RELATING TO THE SAID FLAT AS REFLECTED IN THE MOU DATED 16.07.2012. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL EXAMINE THE SAME AND PASS ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THUS GROUND NO.1 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 17. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 07.08.2019. SD/- SD/- [P. M. JAGTAP] [S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI] VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 07.08.2019 PLACE : KOLKATA RS, SR.PS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1 . APPELLANT ARUN MUKHERJEE(SINCE DECD.), SAMRAT MUKHERJEE, L/R OF LATE ARUN MUKHERJEE, FLAT-302, 67, HINDUSTAN PARK, P.S. GARIAHAT, KOLKATA 700029. 2 RESPONDENT ITO, WARD-1(4), DURGAPUR 3 . THE CIT(A), KOLKATA 4. 5. CIT , KOLKATA DR, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKA TA //TRUE COPY// BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, KOLKATA.