Amarchand Dilipchand, Tiruvannamalai V. ITO Ward 1, Tiruvannamalai

ITA 699/CHNY/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3979 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-02-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 26-02-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Valuation report
• Section: 69; 54F

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH : CHENNAI [BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ] ./I.T.A. NO. 699/CHNY/2018 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-2014. AMARCHAND DILIPCHAND, NO.105, CAR STREET, TIRUVANNAMALAI 606 601. [PAN AADPD 9553G] VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD I, TIRUVANNAMALAI. ( / APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI. K. BALASUBRAMANIAN, ADV /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI. SRIDHAR DORA, IRS, JCIT. /DATE OF HEARING : 06 - 0 2 - 201 9 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12 - 0 2 - 201 9 / O R D E R PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL, WHICH IS DIRECTED AGAINS T AN ORDER DATED 19.09.2017 OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-13, CHENNAI HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS. 1.1 APPELLANT HAVING PURCHASED A PROPERTY AT 76, THIRUMANJANA GOPURAM ST., TIRUVANNAMALAI AT A TOTAL COST OF RS.1,22,82,440 ON 12-12-2012, OUT OF SALE PROCEEDS OF RUBY & NAVRATAN STONES AND CLAIMED EXEMPTION U/S 54F, CIT (A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF CLAIM U/S 54F OF THE ACT FOR THE REASON THAT THE NEW ASSET IS ONLY ITA NO.699/CHNY/2018. :- 2 -: COMMERCIAL PROPERTY. 1.2. INSPITE OF PRODUCING BUILDING PLAN, VALUATION REPORT ETC., AND PROVING THAT OUT OF 2500 OF BUILT UP AREA, RESIDENTIAL HOUSE WAS ON 1996 SFT AND ONLY 50 4 SFT OF SHOPS WERE THERE IN THE FRONT [GF & FFJ, RELYING ON A/O'S OBSERVATION THAT THERE WERE 6 COMMERCIAL EB CONNECTIONS, BUT DISREGARDING THE FACT THAT THERE WERE 2 DOMESTIC CONNECTION FOR RESIDENCE, HE ERRED IN AGREEING WITH THE A/O THAT T HIS IS ONLY A COMMERCIAL' PROPERTY. 1.3 LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING, AT LEAST THE ALTERNATIVE CLAIM , THAT PROPORTIONATE EXEMPTION OF RS.1,07,34,OOO, U/S 54F SHOULD BE ALLOWED FOR THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE VIZ., 1996 SFT ON THE BASIS OF VALUATION CERTIFICATE FILED BEFORE HIM. 1.4 AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVING ACCEPTED THE GENUINENESS OF SALE OF PRECIOUS STONES TO M/S.ABHILASHA JEWELLERS, JAIPUR AT RS.66,94,260 AND REINVESTED THE SAME IN THE ABOVE PROPERTY ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING DEDUCTION U/S 54F TO THIS EXTENT BUT ERRED IN TAXING IT AS LTCG. 1.5 AUTHORITIES BELOW ERRED IN INVOKING SEC.69 WHIL E ACTUALLY APPELLANT ACCOUNTED FOR THE INVESTMENT IN NEW PROPERTY VIDE B/S FOR YE 31-3-2014 AND HENCE IT IS NOT A CASE OF INVESTMENT NOT RECORDED IN THE BOO KS OF ACCOUNTS. 2. CONTRARY TO FACTS AND INSPITE OF ALL EVIDENCE FI LED, CIT (A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.41,00,000/- TOWARDS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT U/S 69 IN RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY AT TIRUVANNAMALAI IE., C ASH DEPOSITS APPEARING IN BANK ETC ALLEGED TO HAVE RECEIVED FROM SAMYAK GEMS. 2. FACTS APROPOS ARE THAT ASSESSEE HAVING INCOME FROM INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AND LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS HAD FILED HIS RETURN FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR DISCLOSING INCOME OF RS.9,17,080/- AND AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.1,82,516/-. ASSESSEE HAD DISCLOSED LONG ITA NO.699/CHNY/2018. :- 3 -: TERM CAPITAL GAINS ON SALE OF PRECIOUS STONES IN TH E RETURN AND CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S.54F OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN S HORT THE ACT) ON THE GAINS ARISING FROM SUCH SALE. DETAILS OF THE S ALE OF PRECIOUS STONES GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE WERE AS UNDER:- SL.NO NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE PURCHASER PAN & JURISDICTION INVOICE NO. DETAILS OF PRODUCT SOLD AMOUNT RS. 1 M/S. SAMYAK GEMS AND JEWELS 5270, K.G.B. KARASTA, JOAHRI BAZAR, JAIPUR AIMPJ1307P ITO, WARD 7(3) JAIPUR 12 OF 12-13 DATED 28.08.2012 NAVARATAN BEADS, NAVARATAN STONES AND RUBY 41,00,000 2 M/S. ABHILASHA JEWELLERS, K.G.B. KARASTA, JOAHRI BAZAR, JAIPUR 302 003. AXPPS8793J ITO, WARD 2(2) JAIPUR 4/2012-13, DATED 6.8.2012 NAVARATAN BEADS, NAVARATAN STONES AND RUBY 65,26,550 ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED THE PROCEEDS FROM ABOVE SALE TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS IN ITS BANK ACCOU NT WITH M/S. HDFC BANK, TIRUVANNAMALAI. 3. LD. AO MADE ENQUIRIES FOR ASCERTAINING THE GENUIN ENESS OF THE CLAIM OF SALE OF PRECIOUS STONES BY ISSUING A COMMISSION U/S.131(1) (D) OF THE ACT. BASED ON COMMISSION REP ORT, LD. AO ACCEPTED THE SALE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE TO M/S. ABHILASHA JEWELLERS, JAIPUR. HOWEVER, AS PER THE LD. AO, TH E COMMISSION REPORT ITA NO.699/CHNY/2018. :- 4 -: LED HIM TO A CONCLUSION THAT THE SALE CLAIMED TO H AVE BEEN MADE TO M/S. SAMYAK GEMS AND JEWELS WAS BOGUS. AS PER THE LD. AO, ENQUIRIES CONDUCTED BY ITO, JAIPUR INDICATED THA T M/S. SAMYAK JEWELS AND GEMS HAD NOT FILED ANY RETURNS SINCE A SSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12, AND THEY COULD NOT BE LOCATED AT THE GIVEN ADDRESS. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED PAN OF M/S. SAMYAK GEMS AN D JEWELS AND THEIR SALES TAX REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE DATED 29.0 8.2011, THESE WERE NOT ACCEPTED BY THE LD. AO. HE THUS HELD THE CLAIM OF SALE OF PRECIOUS STONES TO M/S. SAMYAK GEMS AND JEWELS TO BE BOGUS . THE SUM OF RS.41,00,000/- SHOWN AS CONSIDERATION RECEIVED ON S UCH SALE WAS TAKEN AS UNEXPLAINED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. AGAINST THE CAPITAL GAINS ARISING ON THE SALE OF TH E PRECIOUS STONES ASSESSEE HAD MADE A CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S .54F OF THE ACT. THIS CLAIM WAS ON THE PURCHASE OF A NEW ASSET BE ARING NO.77, THIRUMANJA GOPURAM STREET, TIRUVANNAMALAI. LD. AO MADE ENQUIRES ON THIS CLAIM AND OBTAINED INFORMATION FROM ELECTR ICITY DEPARTMENT BY INVOKING POWERS VESTED ON HIM U/S.133(6) OF THE ACT . ELECTRICITY DEPARTMENT GAVE THE DETAILS OF THE CONNECTIONS IN T HE ABOVE PREMISES AS UNDER:- ITA NO.699/CHNY/2018. :- 5 -: SL. NO SC NO CONSUMER NAME DOMESTIC TARIFF OR COMMERCIAL TARIFF FROM 1.4.12 TO 12.9.12 CURRENT STATUS DATE OF CONNECTION DC TARIFF FROM 13.9.12 UPTO DISCONNECTION DATE 1 22 - 004 - 318 P. VELAYUDHAM DOMESTIC DC ON 15.1.13 2 22 - 004 - 328 P. VELAYUDHAM DOMESTIC DO 3 22 - 004 - 239 ANNADURAI COMMERCIAL DO 4 22 - 004 - 321 P. VELAYUDHAM COMMERCIAL DC ON 18.2.13 5 22 - 004 - 231 ANNADURAI COMMERCIAL D C ON 20.2.13 6 22 - 004 - 113 ANNADURAI COMMERCIAL DC ON 20.4.13 7 22 - 004 - 238 ANNADURAI COMMERCIAL DC ON 20.4.13 8 22 - 004 - 65 ANNADURAI COMMERCIAL DC ON 20.4.13 AS PER THE LD. AO, THIRUMANJA GOPURAM STREET, WHER E THE NEWLY ACQUIRED ASSET WAS ESTIMATED WAS A BUSINESS AND C OMMERCIAL AREA AND THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT HE HAD INVESTED THE PROCEEDS FROM SALE OF PRECIOUS STONES IN A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY IN THE SAID STREET COULD NOT BE ACCEPTED. THUS, THE LD. AO DENIED TH E CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S.54F OF THE ACT, ON THE PROCEEDS OF S ALE OF PRECIOUS STONES TO M/S. ABHILASHA JEWELLERS, WHICH SALE WAS ACCEPTED AS GENUINE. 5. AGAINST DENIAL OF CLAIM U/S.54F OF THE ACT AND THE ADDITION OF RS.41,00,000/- ASSESSEE MOVED IN APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A). ITA NO.699/CHNY/2018. :- 6 -: ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, EVEN IF A PART OF THE PR OPERTY NEWLY PURCHASED BY HIM WAS PUT TO COMMERCIAL USE, HE WAS STILL ELIGIBLE FOR CLAIMING EXEMPTION U/S.54F OF THE ACT, ON THE RESI DENTIAL PART. ACCORDING TO HIM, PORTION LET OUT FOR COMMERCIAL PU RPOSE WAS ONLY 480 SQ.FT. OUT OF A TOTAL BUILT UP AREA OF 2500 SQ.FT A ND THE BALANCE 2020 SQ.FT. WAS USED SOLEY FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES. AS PER THE ASSESSEE, CONFIRMATION FROM THE ELECTRICITY DEPARTMENT RELIED UPON BY THE LD. AO, CLEARLY INDICATED THAT ATLEAST TWO OF THE CONNECTIO NS WERE CHARGED ON DOMESTIC RATES. THEREFORE IT WAS CLAIMED BY THE ASS ESSEE THAT HE WAS ELIGIBLE ATLEAST FOR A PRORATA DEDUCTION U/S.54F OF THE ACT 6. VIZ-A-VIZ, THE ADDITION FOR UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT OF RS.41,00,000/-, SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE T HE LD. CIT(A) WAS THAT HE HAD GIVEN THE PAN, SALES TAX REGISTRATION O F THE BUYER AND SHOULD NOT BE FASTENED WITH A LIABILITY FOR THE NON AVAILABILITY OF THE BUYER WHEN ENQUIRES WERE CONDUCTED BY THE REVENUE. 7. HOWEVER, LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT APPRECIATIVE OF THE A BOVE CONTENTIONS. ACCORDING TO HIM, THE NEW ASSET ON WHICH SECTION 54F OF THE ACT CLAIM WAS MADE, WAS IN A BUSY COMMERCIA L AREA AND THEREFORE THE BUILDING COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED A S RESIDENTIAL IN NATURE. VIZ-A-VIZ THE CLAIM OF SALE OF DIAMONDS FOR RS.41,00,000/-, LD. CIT(A) WAS OF THE OPINION THAT ASSESSEE COULD NOT GIVE A CONFIRMATION ITA NO.699/CHNY/2018. :- 7 -: FROM M/S. SAMYAK JEWELS AND GEMS FOR THE SALE OF S TONES CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN MADE TO THEM. WITH THESE OBSERVATIONS, H E DISMISSED THE GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE. 8. NOW BEFORE US, LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE STRONG LY ASSAILING THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES, PLAC ED RELIANCE ON THE PURCHASE DEED DATED 12 TH SEPTEMBER, 2012 THROUGH WHICH ASSESSEE ACQUIRED THE PROPERTY ON WHICH DEDUCTION U/S.54F O F THE ACT WAS CLAIMED AND SUBMITTED THAT SCHEDULE OF THE PROPERTY GIVEN THEREIN CLEARLY INDICATED EXISTENCE OF AN R.C.C. HOUSE AND A SHOP WHICH WAS CONSTRUCTED IN FRONT OF THE HOUSE, AS ALSO A SHOP IN FIRST FLOOR. THIS ACCORDING TO HIM, CLEARLY PROVED THAT ATLEAST A PAR T OF THE NEW ASSET WAS RESIDENTIAL IN NATURE. RELIANCE WAS ALSO PLACED ON A PLAN PREPARED BY ONE SHRI. V. RAMAMOORTHY, LICENCED SURVEYOR WHI CH INDICATED THAT HOUSE AREA WAS 1996 SQ .FT AND SHOP AREA WAS 504 SQ .FT. THUS, ACCORDING TO HIM, ASSESSEE COULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENI ED DEDUCTION U/S.54F OF THE ACT ON THAT PART OF THE AREA WHICH WAS CLEARLY A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. 9. ADVERTING TO THE ADDITION MADE U/S.69 OF THE ACT, L D. AR SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN PAN AND ADDRESS O F M/S. SAMYAK JEWELS AND GEMS. ACCORDING TO THE LD. AR, PROCEEDS FROM THE SALE OF ITA NO.699/CHNY/2018. :- 8 -: THE PRECIOUS STONES WERE RECEIVED THROUGH BANKING C HANNELS AND THEREFORE IT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISBELIEVED. AS P ER THE LD. AR, EVEN A COPY OF THE SALE TAX REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF M/ S. SAMYAK JEWELS AND GEMS WAS PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE. CONTENTION OF THE LD. AR WAS THAT ASSESSEE COULD NOT HAVE BEEN FAULTED FOR FAIL URE OF M/S. SAMYAK JEWELS AND GEMS TO FILE THEIR RETURN OF INCOME. THUS, ACCORDING TO HIM, ADDITION OF RS.41,00,000/- WAS UNJUSTIFIED. 10. PER CONTRA, LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITT ED THAT AN ENQUIRY WAS CONDUCTED BY AN INSPECTOR OF INCOME TAX ON 11.06.2018 BASED ON EARLIER DIRECTIONS OF THIS BEN CH. ACCORDING TO HIM, THE INSPECTOR OF INCOME TAX IN THE ENQUIRY RE PORT HAS CLEARLY STATED THAT THERE WAS A NEW BUILDING AT NO.76, THIR UMANJANA GOPURA STREET, TIRUVANNAMALAI AND THE SAID BUILDING WAS HA VING FOUR EB CONNECTIONS ALL OF WHICH WERE FOR COMMERCIAL PURPO SE. THUS, ACCORDING TO THE LD. DR, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE U/S.54F OF THE ACT COULD NOT BE ALLOWED. AS FOR THE CLAIM OF SALE TO M/S. SAMYAK JEWELS AND GEMS, CONTENTION OF THE LD. DR WAS THAT ASSESSE E COULD NOT PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE SALE. 11. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSE D THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. FIRST DEALING WI TH THE ENQUIRY REPORT ITA NO.699/CHNY/2018. :- 9 -: OF INSPECTOR, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT DATED 11.06.20 18 WITH REGARD TO THE NATURE OF THE BUILDING AT NO.76, THIRUMANJAN A GOPURA STREET, TIRUVANNAMALAI, WHAT HAS BEEN STATED IN THE REPORT IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER:- WHEN I VISITED, I SAW THAT A NEW TWO STOREYED BUILD ING NAMELY, 'DAGA' S EEMS TO HAVE BEEN COMPLETED OR NEARING COMPLETION A ND NOT YET OPENED IN THE ABOVE SAID ADDRESS. THE SHUTT ERS OF THE BUILDING ARE CLOSED. HENCE, I COULD NOT SEE THE INNER VIEW OF THE BUILDING. THE BUILDING IS LOCATED IN THE THIRUMANJANA GOPURA STREET, TIRUVANNAMALAI, WHICH IS THE COMMERCIAL AREA ONLY. WHEN I ENQUIRED NEARBY SHOPS, IT REVEALS THAT THE CONSTRUC TED NEW BUILDING IS A COMMERCIAL BL:1I1DING AND NOT A RESID ENTIAL BUILDING. I TOOK PHOTOGRAPH OF THE BUILDING (OUTSIDE FRONT VIEW ), WHICH IS ENCLOSED HEREWITH FOR THE KIND PERUSAL. AS THE BUILDING IS NEW AND NEARING COMPLETION, NO T ENANTS ARE OCCUPIED AS ON DATE. LOCAL NEARBY SHOP PERSONS ALSO TOLD THAT OLD BUILDING WAS DEMOLISHED AND NEW BUILDING HAS BEEN C ONSTRUCTED AND BUILDING IS NOT YET OPENED AND NO PERSON OCCUPIED A S ON TODAY, I.E. 11- 6-2018 AS THE BUILDING IS NEWLY CONSTRUCTED AND SHUTTERS O F THE BUILDING ARE CLOSED AT THE TIME OF MY VISIT, I COULD NOT VERIFY THE NUMBER OF ELECTRICITY CONNECTIONS AVAILABLE IN THE BUILDING. HOWEVER, I WENT TO ELECTRICITY BOARD OFFICE AT TIRUVANNAMALAI TOWN AND ENQUIRED ABOUT THE ELECTRICITY CONNECTIONS PROVIDED TO THE SAID BU ILDING. ENQUIRY REVEALS THAT THEY PROVIDED FOUR (4) 3-PHASE COMMERC IAL PURPOSE CONNECTIONS TO SAID BUILDING BEARING SC.NO.202-004-434, 202-004- 450, 202-004-451 AND 2002- 004-452 ON 12.03.2014, 1 6.11.2017, 16.11.2017 & 16.11.2017 RESPECTIVELY. IT IS CLEAR FROM THE REPORT THAT BUILDING WHICH WA S INSPECTED BY THE INSPECTOR WAS A NEW ONE. LD. AO AT PARA 21 OF HI S ORDER HAS OBSERVED THAT ENQUIRES MADE ON 28.03.2015, REVEALE D A NEW BUILDING UNDER CONSTRUCTION. THUS IN OUR OPINION, REPORT ON AN ENQUIRY DONE ON ITA NO.699/CHNY/2018. :- 10 - : 11.06.2018 WOULD BE OF LITTLE HELP, IF ANY, IN DEC IDING WHETHER THE PROPERTY PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING FINANCIAL YEAR ENDING 31 ST MARCH, 2013, ON WHICH DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/S.54F OF THE ACT WAS RESIDENTIAL OR NOT. SCHEDULE OF THE PROPERTY AS GIV EN IN THE PURCHASE DEED READ AS UNDER: TIRUVANNAMALAI REGISTRATION DISTRICT, TIRUVANNA MALAI SUB-REGISTRATION TIRUVANNAMALAI TOWN, TIRUVANNAMAL AI 4TH WARD, 22 ND BLOCK, THIRURNANJANAQOPURA STREET, TOWN SURVEY NO.1464 SQUARE FEET 5120 THE BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION I S WEST OF STREET, EAST OF LAKSHMANA CHETTIAR GARDEN, NORTH OF LAKSHMANA CHETTIAR HOUSE, SOUTH OF LATE ANNADURAI VAGAIYARA'S HOUSE PROPERTY IN BETWEEN EAST TO WEST NORTHERN SIDE 158 FEET, NORTH TO SOUTH WITH A WALL LOWER SIDE 31 2/2IN UPPER SIDE 34 FEET, WITH A PLACE WHICH FALLS JUST SOUTHERN SIDE OF WELL ACCO RDING TO SUB DIVISION 5120 SQUARE FEET BASEMENT PLOT, FOR WHICH TOTAL SQUARE METER IS 475.66 IN BETWEEN A R.C.C. HOUSE WHICH WAS CONSTRUCTED JUST 20 YEARS BACK TERRACED HOUSE A SHO P WHICH WAS CONSTRUCTED IN FRONT OF THE HOUSE AND A SHOP IN FIR ST FLOOR, WITH ALL FIXTURES DOOR, MAIN DOOR, WINDOWS WITH E.B. SER VICE CONNECTIONS BEARING E.B.NOS. 202 004 318, 202 004 3 28, 202 004 239, 202 004 321, 202 004 231, 202 004 113, 202 004 238, 202 004 065 WITH ITS DEPOSITS, AND WATER CONNECTION BEARING ITS ASSESSMENT NO. 2806 WITH ITS DEPOSITS, WITH WELL RI GHTSHALF SHARE OUT OF ONE, AND 1. H.P. ELECTRIC MOTOR, HOUSE TAX A SSESSMENT NO. 18768 18770, 18771,18772,18773,18774 ITS DOOR NO IS 76 THE SAME WAS GIVEN TO YOU AS IN THE FORM OF REGISTERED SALE DEED. THE MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY IS RS.1,14,00,000/ - . IT IS CLEAR FROM THE ABOVE SCHEDULE THAT THERE IND EED WAS A HOUSE AT THE TIME WHEN THE ASSESSEE ACQUIRED IT. THE PLAN F ROM THE LICENCED SURVEYOR PLACED BY THE ASSESSEEE AT PAPER BOOK NO. 22 INDICATES THAT OUT OF THE TOTAL AREA, 2872 SQ.FT. WAS VACANT LAN D, 1996 SQ.FT WAS ITA NO.699/CHNY/2018. :- 11 - : HOUSE AREA AND 504 SQ.FT WAS SHOP AREA. NO DOUBT D EDUCTION U/S.54F OF THE ACT IS NOT AVAILABLE FOR ANY CONSTRUCTION OTHER THAN A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. HOWEVER, THERE IS NOTHING IN S ECTION 54F OF THE ACT WHAT WOULD BAR AN ASSESSEE FROM CLAIMING DEDUCTION UNDER THE SAID SECTION FOR THE RESIDENTIAL PART OF A BUILDING AC QUIRED BY IT. ASSESSEE HAD ACQUIRED A PROPERTY, WHICH PARTLY COMPRISED OF RESIDENTIAL HOUSE AND PARTLY SHOPS. EVEN THE REPORT FROM THE ELECTRI CITY DEPARTMENT, HEAVILY RELIED ON BY THE LD. AO, SHOW THAT THERE WA S ATLEAST TWO RESIDENTIAL ELECTRICITY CONNECTION. IN SUCH CIRCUMS TANCE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT ASSESSEE CAN CLAIM DEDUCTION U/S.54F O F THE ACT IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO THE PRO RATA CONSIDERATION PAID FOR THE RESIDENTIAL PART OF THE PROPERTY, IF IT SATISFIED OTHER CONDI TIONS, STIPULATED IN SECTION 54F OF THE ACT. 12. COMING TO THE QUESTION WHETHER SALE OF PRECIOUS STO NES OF RS.41,00,000/- CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN MADE TO M/S. SA MYAK GEMS AND JEWELS WAS GENUINE OR NOT, IT IS NOT DISPUTED THA T ASSESSEE HAD FILED A COPY OF THE SALE TAX REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF THE SAID CONCERN, ITS PA NUMBER AND ALSO GIVEN ITS ADDRESS. LD. AR ALSO SU BMITS BEFORE US THAT THE ASSESSEE IF REQUIRED WAS WILLING TO PRODUC E THE PARTNER OF THE SAID M/S. SAMYAK GEMS AND JEWELS FOR PROVING ITS CA SE. ITA NO.699/CHNY/2018. :- 12 - : 13. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ISSUES INVOLVED HAVE TO G O BACK TO THE LD. AO FOR CONSIDERATION AFRESH. LD. AO HAS TO GIVE PRORA TA DEDUCTION U/S.54F OF THE ACT FOR THAT PART OF THE NEWLY ACQUIRED ASS ET COMPRISING OF THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE AND ASSESSEE HAS TO PRODUCE NECES SARY RECORDS TO SATISFY THE LD. AO WITH REGARD TO THE AREA OCCUPIE D FOR RESIDENTIAL HOUSE AND ITS PRORATA COST. VIZ-A-VZ. SALE OF PRE CIOUS STONES, ASSESSEE HAS TO PRODUCE THE AUTHORIZED PERSON FROM M/S. SAM YAK GEMS AND JEWELS FOR CORROBORATING ITS CLAIM. LD. AO THEREA FTER HAS TO PROCEED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 14. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLO WED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON TUESDAY, THE 12 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019, AT CHENNAI. SD/- (N.R.S. GANESAN) / JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/- (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / CHENNAI / DATED:12TH FEBRUARY, 2019. KV / COPY TO: 1 . / APPELLANT 3. ( ) / CIT(A) 5. / DR 2. / RESPONDENT 4. / CIT 6. / GF ITA NO.699/CHNY/2018. :- 13 - :