Parameswaran Manimegala, Coimbatore V. ITO, Coimbatore

ITA 718/CHNY/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4902 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-04-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 29-03-2017
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 07-04-2015
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A V SREEKANTHJCIT
• Assessee Lawyers: T BANUSEKAR
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Valuation report
• Section: 143(3); 54F; 54

Judgement Text

, ' ' , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, CHENNAI , . , ' # BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI. G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO. 718/MDS/2015 /ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 PARAMESWARAN MANIMEGALA, 15/58, K.K. NAGAR, GANAPATHY PO, COIMBATORE - 641 012. [PAN: BKVPM 2577C] VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD II(2), PRESENTLY NON CORPORATE WARD-2(2), COIMBATORE. ( / APPELLANT) ( / RESPONDENT) % & / APPELLANT BY : SHRI T. BANUSEKAR, CA )*% & / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI A.V. SREEKANTH, JCIT & /DATE OF HEARING : 29.03.2017 & /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 04.04.2017 / O R D E R PER G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF CO MMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-2, IN ITA NO. 447/13-14 DATED 25.02.2015 PASSED U/S. 143(3) AND 250 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. ITA NO. 718 / MDS/2015 :- 2 -: 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 2.1 FOR THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION. 2.2 FOR THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEA LS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXEMPTION U/S.54 -T O THE EXTENT OF RS.24,10,OOO/- BEING CONSTRUCTION COST OF BUILDING IN THE FIRST FLOOR AND EXEMPTION ILLS 54E OF RS.40,46,115/- BEING COS T OF PURCHASE OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT. 2.3 FOR THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE APPELLANT HAD SOLD RESIDENTIAL BUILDING MEASURING 1400 SQ.FT. WITH THE LAND APPURTENANT THERETO AS W ELL AS THE BALANCE PORTION OF LAND MEASURING 21 CENTS AND HENCE ELIGI BLE FOR CLAIMING EXEMPTION BOTH U/S.5.4 ON SALE OF RESIDENTIAL BUIL DING AND U/S.54F ON SALE OF BALANCE LAND THOUGH BOTH RESIDENTIAL BUILD ING AND THE LAND WERE SOLD TOGETHER. 2.4 FOR THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEA LS) ERRED IN NOT GRANTING EXEMPTION U/S.54 IN RESPECT OF THE FIRST FLOOR OF THE PROPERTY WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE APPELLANT HAD CONSTR UCTED THE FIRST FLOOR EVEN BEFORE THE PROPERTY WAS REGISTERED IN H ER NAME. ITA NO. 718 / MDS/2015 :- 3 -: 2.5 FOR THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S) ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT IF AT ALL THERE HAD BEEN CONSTRUCT ION ON THE FIRST FLOOR THE VALUE OF THE SAME WOULD HAVE BEEN SHOWN THE RE GISTERED DOCUMENT WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT, THE A PPELLANT HAD PURCHASED ONLY THE GROUND FLOOR OF THE BUILDING TH ROUGH THE REGISTERED DOCUMENT AND THE FIRST FLOOR OF THE PRO PERTY WAS CONSTRUCTED BY THE APPELLANT. 2.6 FOR THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S) ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT THE APPELLANT HAD NOT FILED ANY PL AN APPROVAL FOR THE SAID CONSTRUCTION WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT EVEN I F THE CONSTRUCTION WAS MADE WITHOUT APPROVAL THE SAME WOULD NOT DISEN TITLE THE APPELLANT FROM CLAIMING EXEMPTION U/S.54. 2.7 FOR THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S) FAILED TO CONSIDER THE VALUATION REPORT FURNISHED BY THE APP ELLANT FOR CONSTRUCTION IN THE FIRST FLOOR AND FURTHER FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT A VALUATION REPORT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GIVEN BY A RE GISTERED VALUER IF THERE WAS NO CONSTRUCTION ON THE FIRST FLOOR. 2.8 FOR THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S) WHILE DISALLOWING THE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S.54F OUGHT T O HAVE ALLOWED THE SAME U/S.54 OF THE ACT THE-APPELLANT WOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR CLAIMING EXEMPTION U/S.54 IN RESPECT OF BOTH THE R ESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES. ITA NO. 718 / MDS/2015 :- 4 -: 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND FILED RETURN OF INCOME ELECTRONICALLY FOR THE ASSES SMENT YEAR 2011-12 ON 09.11.2012 WITH TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 2,41,613/- AND RETURN OF INCOME WAS PROCESSED U/S. 143(1) OF THE ACT ON 16.04.2013. SU BSEQUENTLY, THE CASE WAS SELECTED UNDER CASS AND NOTICE U/S. 143(2) OF THE A CT WAS ISSUED. IN RESPONSE, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE APPEARED FROM TIME TO TIME, FURNISHED THE COPY OF INCOME TAX RETURNS, COPY OF BANK'S ACCO UNT STATEMENT, COPY OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF PROPERTY AND OTHER SUBMISSION S IN RESPECT OF THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED. THE LD. AO FOUND THAT THE ASSESSE E ALONG WITH HER MOTHER SOLD PROPERTY MEASURING 19 CENTS OF LAND BY REGIST ERED DOCUMENT NO. 593/11 FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS. 3,24,55,000/- AND ASSESS EE'S SHARE HAS BEEN WORKED OUT TO RS. 1,62,27,500/-. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HA S INCURRED LEGAL EXPENDITURE ON THE PROPERTY AND THE NET CONSIDERATION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IS RS. 1,36,02,500/-. THE ASSESSEE AFTER CONSIDERING THE INDEXED COST ACQUISITION OF LAND HAS WORKED OUT THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS OF RS. 1,10,96,255/- AND FURTHER THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THE EXEMPTION BY P URCHASING TWO RESIDENTIAL HOUSES FOR RS. 44,10,000/- AND 49,60,000/- THE ASS ESSEE EXPLAINED THE FACTS THROUGH LETTER DATED 18.12.2013 AS REFERRED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE PROPERTY ON 01.07.2011 FOR A SUM OF RS. 44,10,000/- AND ALSO INCURRED EXPENDITURE OF RS. 24,10,000/- IN RESPECT OF ADDITIONAL WORKS ON THE FIRST FLOOR OF THE PROPE RTY BEFORE THE DATE OF SALE AND CLAIMED EXEMPTION U/S. 54 OF THE ACT OF RS 68, 20,000/- AND THE ASSESSEE ITA NO. 718 / MDS/2015 :- 5 -: HAS PURCHASED A RESIDENTIAL VILLA MEASURING 1500 SQ .FT. ON FOUR CENTS OF LAND FROM SRI K. ACHUTHAN, AND TOTAL PAYMENTS INCLUDING THE STAMP REGISTRATION CHARGES AND ADDITIONAL WORKS ON A VILLA WAS WORKED OUT TO RS. 49,60,000/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S CLAIMED EXEMPTION U/S. 54 OF THE ACT ON RS. 68,20,000/- AND ALSO EXEMPTION U/S. 54F OF THE ACT ON RS. 49,60,000/-. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT SHE HAS S OLD ALONG WITH HER MOTHER OLD TILED RESIDENTIAL HOUSE OF 1240 SQ.FT. AND LAND , THEREFORE, THE LAND HAS TO BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY. THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHAS ED THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY AND INCURRED ADDITIONAL EXPENDITURE OF RS. 24,10,000/- ON THE FIRST FLOOR. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON PERUSAL OF THE REC ORDS FOUND THAT THE FIRST FLOOR CONSTRUCTION DOES NOT FIND PLACE IN THE SALE DEED A ND CALLED FOR THE APPROVAL PLAN OF THE WORKS. THE LD. AR CONTENTION THAT WITH THE PERMISSION OF THE SELLER OF PROPERTY THE ASSESSEE HAS CONSTRUCTED FIR ST FLOOR, THE LD AO FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT SUBSTANTIATE WITH ANY EVIDEN CE OF APPROVAL OF FIRST FLOOR AND REJECTED THE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S. 54 OF THE ACT TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 24,10,000/- TOWARDS ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTION COST. AND IN RESPECT OF CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S. 54F OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE FILED PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY THROUGH LETTER DATED 12.02.2014 EXPLAINING THAT THE PROPERTY SOLD WAS RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY WITH 1400 SQ.FT. ON BIFURCATI ON OF TOTAL AREA BETWEEN THE BUILDING AND THE LAND, THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR BOTH EXEMPTIONS U/S. 54 AND 54F OF THE ACT. FURTHER, IT WAS EXPLAINED AS PER S ALE DEED EXECUTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND OTHERS THE LAND AREA IS MORE THAN BUIL DING CONSTRUCTED AREA. THE ASSESSEE FILED LETTER DATED 20.01.2014 EXPLAINI NG THE BIFURCATION OF ITA NO. 718 / MDS/2015 :- 6 -: PROPERTY AS RESIDENTIAL BUILDING AND LAND APPARENT THERETO AND THEREFORE ON RESIDENTIAL BUILDING AREA, THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED EXEMPTION U/S. 54 OF THE ACT AND ON LAND APPARENT AREA, ASSESSEE CLAIMED OF EXEMPTION U/S. 54F OF THE ACT ON INVESTMENT IN RESIDENTIAL VILLA, BUT THE ASS ESSING OFFICER WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATIONS AND IS OF THE OPINI ON THAT THE BUILDING AND THE LAND CANNOT BE SEPARATED AND THAT THE PROPERTY BEIN G RESIDENTIAL BUILDING AND LAND APPARENT AND DENIED THE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S . 54F OF THE ACT RS. 40,46,115/- AND ALSO RESTRICTED THE CLAIM OF EXEMPT ION U/S. 54 OF THE ACT TO RS. 44,10,000/- AND DENIED CLAIM OF ADDITIONAL CONS TRUCTION COST OF RS. 24,10,000/- ON THE FIRST FLOOR AND ASSESSED TOTAL I NCOME OF RS. 66,97,720/- AND PASSED ORDER U/S. 143(3) DATED 12.02.2014. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER, ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL WITH THE CIT(A). IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THE LD. AR ARGUED THE GRO UNDS AND REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASS ESSEE ALSO FILED THE ADDITIONAL GROUND BEFORE THE CIT(A) REFERRED AT PAR A 3 OF THE ORDER. THE LD. CIT(A) ON PERUSAL OF THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS DEALT ON THE DISPUTED ISSUES AND CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OF FICER AND DISMISSED THE ASSESSEE'S APPEAL. ITA NO. 718 / MDS/2015 :- 7 -: 5. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE H AS FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. BEFORE US, THE LD. AR ARGUED THE GROUNDS AND SUBSTANTIATED HIS SUBMISSIONS BY FILING PAPER BOOK AND ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE UNDER RULE 29 OF THE ITAT RULES ALONG WITH JUDICIAL DECISIONS. FURTHER, LD. AR EXPLAINED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DENIED EXE MPTION U/S. 54 OF THE ACT ON THE ADDITIONAL COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF RS. 24,10 ,000/- INCURRED ON THE FIRST FLOOR OF THE BUILDING. THE LD. AO ALSO HAS DENIED CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S. 54F OF THE ACT RS. 40,46,115/-. ON COST OF CONSTRUCTIO N OF RESIDENTIAL VILLA AND THE CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE ACTION AND NOT CONSIDERED THE BASIC FACTS THAT THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH MOTHER SOLD PROPERTY INCLUDING LAND APPARENT THERETO. WHEREAS, THE ASSESSEE HAS BIFURCATED THE BUILDING A ND LAND AND CLAIMED EXEMPTION U/S. 54 OF THE ACT ON BUILDING AREA AND E XEMPTION U/S. 54F OF THE ACT ON LAND AREA. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE F IRST FLOOR OF THE BUILDING WAS CONSTRUCTED PRIOR TO THE REGISTRATION OF THE SA LE DEED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, IN RESPECT OF GROUND FLOOR AREA AND THERE FORE, THE ADDITION OF CONSTRUCTION AREA OF FIRST FLOOR AREA DOES NOT APPE AR IN THE SALE DEED. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO CONSIDERED THE VALUATION REPOR T SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF FIRST FLOOR BUT CONFIRMED T HE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LD. AR PRAYED FOR ALLOWING THE EXEMPT ION U/S. 54 AND 54F OF THE ACT AND SUPPORTED WITH THE CASE LAWS AND FILED PAPE R BOOK WITH EVIDENCES AND BANK ACCOUNT STATEMENTS AND TRANSLATION COPY OF SAL E DEEDS AND PRAYED FOR ADMITTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED AND ALLOW T HE APPEAL. ITA NO. 718 / MDS/2015 :- 8 -: 6. WE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATE RIAL ON RECORD AND JUDICIAL DECISIONS AND THE PETITION FILED BY THE AS SESSEE UNDER RULE 29 OF THE ITAT RULES ON THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. THE LD. AR CONTENTIONS WERE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD THE BUILDING AND LAND APPARENT TH ERETO AND ALSO COMPLIED THE CONDITIONS OF SECTION 54 OF THE ACT AND 54F OF THE ACT ON THE STIPULATED TIME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS VERIFIED THE FACTS OF SALE AND PURCHASE OF PROPERTY AND HAS NOT ALLOWED THE ADDITIONAL CONSTRU CTION COST INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE FIRST FLOOR OF THE PROPERTY, WHICH WAS CLAIMED U/S. 54 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD THE PROPERTY THROUGH SI NGLE SALE DEED WITH TWO COMPONENTS BEING BUILDING AND LAND SEPARATELY AND A SSESSEE IN RESPECT OF THE LAND CLAIMED EXEMPTION U/S. 54F BY INVESTING IN ANO THER RESIDENTIAL VILLA OF RS. 49,60,000/- AND SAME WAS DENIED BY THE AO. THE LD. CIT(A) CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS BUT CONCURRED WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND DISMISSED THE ASSESSEE'S APPEAL. AT THE TIME OF HE ARING, THE LD. AR REFERRED TO THE PAPER BOOK IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM WITH THE SALE DEED COPIES AND TRANSLATION COPY AND RECEIPTS AND PAYMENTS REFERRED AT PAGE 22 TO 26 TO SUPPORT THE CONSTRUCTION WORKS OF FIRST FLOOR OF TH E BUILDING. THE LD. AR ALSO OBTAINED THE AFFIDAVIT FROM THE OWNERS TO PERMIT TH E ASSESSEE TO CONSTRUCT THE FIRST FLOOR ON THE SAID PREMISES AND FILED THE VALU ATION REPORT DATED 22.12.2011 EXPLAINING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE FIRST FLOOR AREA AND THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION WORKED OUT TO RS 24 LAKHS FOR 1500 SQ.FT. AND ALSO FILED COPY OF AFFIDAVIT SUPPORTING THE CONSTRUCTING ON THE FIRST FLOOR OF T HE PROPERTY. THE LD. AR EMPHASIZED THAT THE ASSESSEE WITH DUE COMPLIANCE OF LAW HAS OBTAINED ITA NO. 718 / MDS/2015 :- 9 -: PERMISSION FROM THE EARLIER OWNERS AND MADE CONSTRU CTION ON THE FIRST FLOOR AND SUPPORTED WITH THESE MATERIAL PAPERS. SIMILARL Y, THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED A RESIDENTIAL VILLA BY REGISTERED SALE DEED DATED 2 1.03.2011 FROM THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER REFERRED AT PAGE 36 TO 49 OF THE PA PER BOOK AND CLAIMED EXEMPTION U/S. 54F ON APPARENT LAND SOLD ALONG WITH THE BUILDING. THE LD. AR ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION U/S. 54 AND 54F OF THE ACT OR TOTAL EXEMPTION U/S. 54 OF THE ACT TO BE ALLOWED AND SUPPORTED HIS ARGUMENTS WITH THE CASE LAWS: 1. B. SIVASUBRAMANIAN V ITO IN ITA NO. 1/MDS/2013 D ATED 12.03.2014 2. CIT V ANR V D ANANDA BASAPPA [2009] 309 ITR 329 (KAR) 3. CIT & ANR V SMT. K. G. RUKMINIAMMA [2011] 331 I TR 211 (KAR) 4. CIT V GITA DUGGAL [2013] 257 CTR (DELHI) 208 5. CIT V SYED ALO ADI [2012] 83 CCH 240 (AP) 6. CIT V V.R. KARPAGAM IN TAX CASE APPEAL N.301 OF 2017 - MADRAS HC 7. ITO V MRS. P.A. SARALA [2015] 58 TAXMANN.COM 29 0 (CHENNAI- TRIB) THE LD. AR ALSO FILED THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION COPIE S OF SALE DEED EXECUTED FILED IN PAPER BOOK. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR SUBMI TTED THAT THE PROPERTY SOLD CANNOT BE DIVIDED AS BUILDING AND LAND APPAREN T THERETO AS ONLY ONE SALE DEED EXECUTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HER MOTHER. THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S. 54 AND 54F OF THE ACT WHICH WAS CONSIDERED BUT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DENIED EXEMPTION U/S. 54F OF THE ACT. THE LD. AR FILED THE CHART WITH SEQUENCES OF EVENTS ON THE PURCHASE OF VILLA AND CLAIMED ITA NO. 718 / MDS/2015 :- 10 -: EXEMPTION U/S. 54F OF THE ACT AND SUPPORTING WITH T HE BANK STATEMENT FILED AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. SIMILARLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS P URCHASED THE PROPERTY ON 01.07.2011 AND INCURRED THE CONSTRUCTION COST ON FI RST FLOOR OF RS. 24,10,000/- WHICH WAS REJECTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE L D. AR FURTHER EMPHASIZED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED A COPY OF VALUATION REPORT BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPECT OF FIRST FLOOR OF CONS TRUCTION. THE LD. AR DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE PETITION FILED UNDER RULE 29 OF IT AT RULES, WHERE LD. AR SUPPORTED HIS ARGUMENTS AND CONTROVERT THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CIT(A) AND FOR THE FIRST TIME SUBMITTED THE ADD ITIONAL EVIDENCE IN RESPECT OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE FIRST FLOOR AND MUNICIPAL TA X RECEIPT ARE IN MALAYALAM LANGUAGE ALONG WITH TRANSLATION COPY IN ENGLISH AND EXPLAINED THAT THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE AND CLAIMED EXEMPTION U/S. 54 OF THE ACT AND THEY ARE NUMBERED AS GROUND FLOOR AN D FIRST FLOOR NO. 325A AND 325B AND THESE FACTS AND EVIDENCES WERE NOT FILED B EFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR CIT(A). FURTHER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DENIED THE CLAIM OF SECTION 54F WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED THE VI LLA FROM SHRI ANAND ACHARYA AND INCURRED RS. 28 LAKHS TOWARDS VARIOUS W ORKS FOR COMPLETION OF VILLA FOR POSSESSION. WHEREAS, THE ASSESSEE SUBMIT TED FOR THE FIRST TIME, THE BANK ACCOUNT STATEMENTS JOINTLY WITH HER MOTHER TO EXPLAIN WITHDRAWAL FROM THE BANK ACCOUNTS ON VARIOUS DATES FOR MAKING PAYME NT TO CONTRACTORS IN COMPLETION OF THE VILLA. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILE D THESE EVIDENCE BEFORE THE ASSESSING AUTHORITIES ON CONSTRUCTION WORKS OF THE VILLA PROPERTY. THE LD. AR PRAYED THAT THE TRIBUNAL TO ACCEPT THE MUNICIPAL TA X RECEIPT AND BANK ACCOUNT ITA NO. 718 / MDS/2015 :- 11 -: STATEMENT AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AS AND PRAYED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO ELIGIBLE FOR CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S. 54F IN RESPECT OF INVESTMENTS IN VILLA PROPERTY. THE LD. DR OBJECTED TO THE ADDITIONAL EVI DENCE FILED AS PER THE ITAT RULES AND ARGUED THAT THESE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES WA S NOT AVAILABLE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND WAS DEPRIVED TO VERIFY AND EXAMINE THE GENUINENESS OF MATERIAL AND PRAYED FOR AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY THE DOC UMENTS. 7. WE FOUND THAT THERE IS STRENGTH IN THE SUBMISSIO NS OF THE LD. AR AND THE ASSESSEE FILED PETITION UNDER RULE 29 OF THE IT AT RULES FOR ADMITTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE HAVING VALUABLE IMPACT ON THE A SSESSMENT OF THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, THERE IS NO DISPUTE ON THE SALE AND PURCHA SE OF THE PROPERTY BUT ONLY ON THE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION BY THE ASSESSEE AND ADDIT IONAL CONSTRUCTION COST. WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER SH ALL BE PROVIDED AN OPPORTUNITY TO VERIFY THESE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES AN D COMPLY THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 46A OF IT RULES. IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE REMIT THE DISPUTED ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY AND EXA MINE THE GENUINENESS OF EVIDENCE FILED AND LD. AO SHALL PROVIDE AN ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE BEFORE PASSING THE ORDER ON MERITS. S INCE, WE HAVE REMITTED THE ISSUE TO ASSESSING OFFICER FOR CONSIDERING THE ADDI TIONAL EVIDENCE, AT THIS STAGE WE REFRAIN FROM ADJUDICATING THE ISSUE RELATING TO CLAIM U/S. 54 AND U/S. 54F OF THE ACT WHICH WOULD BE DECIDED BY ASSESSING OFFICER AT HIS LEVEL AFTER VERIFYING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. ITA NO. 718 / MDS/2015 :- 12 -: 8. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEE APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR ST ATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON TUESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL, 2017 AT CHENNAI. /CHENNAI, / /DATED: 4TH APRIL, 2017. JPV & )'12 32 /COPY TO: 1. % /APPELLANT 2. )*% /RESPONDENT 3. 4 ( )/CIT(A) 4. 4 /CIT 5. 2 )'' /DR 6. 8 /GF SD/ - ( ' ) (CHANDRA POOJARI) $ /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/ - ( . ) (G. PAVAN KUMAR) % $ /JUDICIAL MEMBER