ACIT Central Circle-13 Mumbai. Vs. Shri Vivek Venugopal N0.1583, J-Block 15th Main Road, Anna Nagar Chennai-600 040.
July, 01st 2014
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
"F" Bench, Mumbai
Before Shri D.Manmohan, Vice President
And Shri Rajendra, Accountant Member
(Assessment Year : 2009-10)
ACIT Vs. Shri Vivek Venugopal
Central Circle-13 N0.1583, J-Block
Mumbai. 15th Main Road, Anna Nagar
PAN/GIR No. AEBT 3112 P
(Appellant) .. (Respondent)
Assessee by : None
Department by : Shri Pradeep Shaurya
Date of Hearing : 26.6.2014
Date of Pronouncement : 26.6.2014
Per D. Manmohan, V.P :
This appeal is filed at the instance of the Revenue and it pertains to
assessment year 2009-10. Following grounds were raised.
"1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, learned
CIT(A) has erred in allowing the deduction u/s. 54 of the I.T. Act of
Rs.25,00,000/- out of Rs.32,86,123/- without appreciating the fact that
the Assessee could not substantiate that the building standing to the
land was a residential house.
2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law,
learned CIT(A) erred in admitting additional evidence under Rule 46A of
the I.T. Rules without giving any opportunity to the Assessing Officer."
2. In short the case of the Assessing Officer is that the Assessee did
not purchase a residential house and, hence, is not entitled to exemption u/s.
of 54F of the I.T. Act, 1961. On appeal filed by the Assessee ld. CIT(A) observed
as under :-
2 ITA No.5454/M/12
"2.6.2 I have considered the submissions made by the Ld. A.R. and find from
the agreement for purchase of residential house which was also submitted
before the A.O. and a notarized English translation of which has been obtained,
that property in question was purchased by the appellant along with the
Janmam Rights, improvements, house, well and easement rights and land
appurtenant thereto for a consideration of Rs.25 lakh. Thus, the observation of
the Ld. A.O. that it was not possible to ascertain whether the appellant had
purchased a house or merely a piece of land is incorrect. As far as denial of
deduction u/s.54F on the vacant piece of land appurtenant to the house is
concerned, my attention was drawn to the decision in the case of Addl. CIT vs.
Narendra Mohan Unilyal 34 SOT 152 (Del.) and Shyamsunder Mukia vs. ITO
38 ITD (JP) 125 where it has been held that cost of vacant land appurtenant
and forming part of the residential unit is to be considered for claim of
deduction u/s.54F even if no construction has been done on the appurtenant
2.6.3 In view of the above, it is apparent that the appellant is eligible for
deduction us/.54F. However, during the course of appellate proceedings fresh
working of revised claim of exemption has been given which is as under-
"The sale deed was executed and registered on 5th Nov, 2009 for total
consideration of Rs.25 Lacs. The assessee has paid a sum of Rs.
23,70,000/- on or before 31/03/2009 and balance amount of
Rs.1,30,000/- on 10th April, 2009. The assessee incurred further
expenditure of Rs.3,97,611/- by way of stamp duty and registration
charges. Hence total cost works out to Rs. 28,97,611/- .
In view of the above, assessee at the time of assessment proceeding
claim of exemption u/s. 54F for Rs.28,85,426/-. The working is as
28,97,611 /- x 1,32,77,264/-
-------------------------------------- = Rs.28,85,426/-
2.6.4 However, as against the above, Ld. A.O. has observed in the
assessment order that appellant filed a revised claim of deduction u/s.54F to
the extent of Rs.25,00,000/- only. Therefore, I am inclined to allow deduction
u/s.54F only to the extent of Rs.25 lakh as per the claim made by the
appellant before the Ld. A.O.
2.6.5 Accordingly, this ground is partly allowed."
3 ITA No.5454/M/12
3. Though the Revenue preferred an appeal before us no evidence
was placed to substantiate its contention. Having regard to the circumstances
of the case and details given by CIT(A) we are of the view that the order passed
by CIT(A) does not call for any interference. In short, order of CIT(A) is affirmed
and appeal by the Revenue is dismissed.
Order pronounced on 26th Day of June, 2014 .
(RAJENDRA) (D. MANMOHAN)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT
Mumbai; Dated : 26/6/2014
Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent.
3. The CIT(A)
5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai
6. Guard file.