CHIMMAN LAL SHARMA, Jaipur V. ITO, Alwar

ITA 609/JPR/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1967 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-11-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 03-09-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: O P BHATEJA
• Section: 54

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES SMC, JAIPUR JH IH-DS-CALY] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI P.K. BANSAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VK;DJ VIHY LA- @ ITA NO. 609/JP/2014 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z @ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 CHIMMAN LAL SHARMA, PROP.- M/S SHARMA CLINIC, NEAR SAMTEL MOD, BHIWADI, (ALWAR). CUKE VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2), ALWAR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ L A-@ PAN/GIR NO.: AESPS 9698 Q VIHYKFKHZ @ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ @ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS @ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI P.C. PARWAL (CA) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS @ REVENUE BY : SHRI O.P. BHATEJA (ADDL.CIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF HEARING : 02/11/2015 MN?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[ K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 03/11/2015 VKNS'K @ ORDER PER P.K. BANSAL, A.M. THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 16/07/2014 PASSED BY THE LD CIT(A), ALWAR FOR A.Y. 2006-07 BY TAKING THE FOLLOWING EFFECTIVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AS UNDER:- 1. THE LD CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN CO NFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 5,27,724/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UN EXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSE U/S 69. ITA 609/JP/2014_ CHIMMAN LAL SHARMA VS ITO 2 2. THE LD CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN CON FIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 3,19,181/- BY DENYING THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE U/S 54. 2. GROUND NO. 1 RELATES TO CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 5,27,724/-. AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PAR TIES AND GOING THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE TAX AUTHORITIES BELOW, I NOTED THA T IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WORKED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS I NCURRED THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUILDING AT 2/5, UIT, BHIWADI. IT WAS ALSO NOTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED A SUM OF RS. 2,87,071/- ON THE REPAYMENT OF OLD/EXISTING HOUSING LOAN. THERE FORE, THE TOTAL OUTFLOW WAS WORKED OUT DURING THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR AT RS. 17,27,724/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSE E HAS TAKEN LOAN OF RS. 10 LACS FROM LIC HOUSING FINANCE AND RS. 2 LACS ON ACCOUNT OF THE SALE PROCEEDING FROM THE PROPERTY SITUATED AT 2A/49, UIT, BHIWADI AND HE ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED A CREDIT OF RS. 12 LACS AND MADE ADDITION OF RS. 5,27,724/-, WHICH WAS SUSTAINED BY THE LD CIT(A). I NO TED THAT THE ASSESSEE IN HIS RETURN ORIGINALLY FILED FOR THE ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 HAS SHOWN SALES REALIZATION IN RESPECT OF PROPERTY AT 2 A/49 UIT, BHIWADI AT RS. 8.00 LACS BUT THE REVENUE DID NOT ACCEPT IT AS A SO URCE OF INVESTMENT. THE REVENUE HAS ACCEPTED ONLY A SUM OF RS. 2 LACS. IN M Y OPINION, A SUM OF RS. 5,27,724/- ADDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ARE DULY COVERED BY RS. 6 LACS ITA 609/JP/2014_ CHIMMAN LAL SHARMA VS ITO 3 EXTRA SALE CONSIDERATION SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN H IS ORIGINAL RETURN. THIS MUCH MONEY WAS AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF RS. 5,27,724/-. I, THEREFORE, DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS . 5,27,724/-. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO. 1 OF THE APPEAL STANDS ALLOWED. 3. SO FAR GROUND NO. 2 OF THE APPEAL, AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND GOING THROUGH T HE ORDER OF THE TAX AUTHORITIES BELOW, I NOTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICE R DENIED EXEMPTION TO THE ASSESSEE U/S 54 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) FOR RS. 31,91,81/- DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CO NSTRUCTED HOUSE PROPERTY FOR RS. 12,97,783/- AT 2/5 UIT, BHIWADI BUT THE SAID PROPERTY WAS COMMERCIAL-CUM-RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. THIS IS UNDISPU TED FACT THAT BASEMENT AND GROUND FLOOR OF THIS PROPERTY WAS A COM MERCIAL ONE WHILE FIRST FLOOR HAS BEEN CONSTRUCTED FOR RESIDENTIAL PU RPOSES. THUS, IF THE WHOLE OF THE INVESTMENT IN THE NEW BUILDING IS PROPORTIONA TELY DIVIDED. THE ASSESSEE, IN MY OPINION HAD INVESTED 1/3 RD OF RS. 12,97,783/- FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES. IT IS NOT DENIED THAT THE FIR ST FLOOR IS A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE, THE 1/3 RD OF RS. 12,97,783/- IN ANY CASE IS IN EXCESS OF RS. 3,19,181/-. I, ACCORDINGLY, SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND ALLOW EXEMPTION TO THE ASSESSEE U/S 54 OF THE AC T FOR RS. 3,19,181/-. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL STANDS ALLOWED. ITA 609/JP/2014_ CHIMMAN LAL SHARMA VS ITO 4 4. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS A LLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 03/11/2015. SD/- IH-DS-CALY (P.K. BANSAL) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ @ JAIPUR FNUKAD @ DATED:- 03 RD NOVEMBER, 2015 *RANJAN VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR @ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ @ THE APPELLANT- SHRI CHIMMAN LAL SHARMA, BHIWADI. 2. IZR;FKHZ @ THE RESPONDENT- THE ITO, WARD 2(2), ALWAR. 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR @ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDR @ CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ @ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY @ GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 609/JP/2014) VKNS'KKUQLKJ @ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ @ ASST. REGISTRAR