Section 54 Relief Denied on the basis of Building Permission Plan Submitted by Assessee: ITAT
- Blog|News|Income Tax|
- 2 Min Read
- By Taxmann
- |
- Last Updated on 18 April, 2023
Latest from Taxmann
Case Details: R. Mohan v. ITO - [2023] 149 taxmann.com 54 (Chennai-Trib.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
-
- Mahavir Singh, Vice President & G. Manjunatha, Accountant Member
- N. Arjunraj, CA & S. Sridhar, Adv. for the Appellant.
- AR. V. Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
Assessee sold his inherited property and used sale consideration to purchase a residential plot and construct the house. Assessee claimed deduction under section 54 with respect to said purchases.
During the assessment, Assessing Officer (AO) allowed deductions towards re-investment in the purchase of another residential house property. However, he disallowed the amount claimed for the construction of the house property on the ground that the assessee failed to file any evidence to prove the completion of the house construction.
On appeal, the CIT(A) upheld the disallowance made by AO. Aggrieved-assessee filed the instant appeal before the Tribunal.
ITAT Held
The Tribunal held that the assessee had obtained Demolition & Re-construction Permission’ from the Corporation of Chennai on 15-5-2012 and also obtained ‘Building Plan Permission’ on 19-5-2012. However, on the basis of the ‘Building Permission Plan’ so obtained, it cannot be assumed that the assessee has completed the construction of the house property.
The assessee had also filed an ‘Estimate’ for the construction of the residential building and a Valuation Report obtained from the approved Valuer along with photos taken. Still, the fact remains that the Valuation Report obtained from the approved Valuer specified the probable completion date of the house property construction. Further, the photographs alone cannot indicate the completion of the house property.
Therefore, based on said evidence, it cannot be concluded that the assessee satisfied the conditions prescribed under section 54 to allow the benefit.
List of Cases Referred to
-
- CIT v. Manjula J. Shah [2011] 16 taxmann.com 42/[2012] 204 Taxman 691/[2013] 355 ITR 474 (Bom.) (para 5).
Disclaimer: The content/information published on the website is only for general information of the user and shall not be construed as legal advice. While the Taxmann has exercised reasonable efforts to ensure the veracity of information/content published, Taxmann shall be under no liability in any manner whatsoever for incorrect information, if any.
Taxmann Publications has a dedicated in-house Research & Editorial Team. This team consists of a team of Chartered Accountants, Company Secretaries, and Lawyers. This team works under the guidance and supervision of editor-in-chief Mr Rakesh Bhargava.
The Research and Editorial Team is responsible for developing reliable and accurate content for the readers. The team follows the six-sigma approach to achieve the benchmark of zero error in its publications and research platforms. The team ensures that the following publication guidelines are thoroughly followed while developing the content:
- The statutory material is obtained only from the authorized and reliable sources
- All the latest developments in the judicial and legislative fields are covered
- Prepare the analytical write-ups on current, controversial, and important issues to help the readers to understand the concept and its implications
- Every content published by Taxmann is complete, accurate and lucid
- All evidence-based statements are supported with proper reference to Section, Circular No., Notification No. or citations
- The golden rules of grammar, style and consistency are thoroughly followed
- Font and size that’s easy to read and remain consistent across all imprint and digital publications are applied
Sign Up
To subscribe to our weekly newsletter please log in/register on Taxmann.com
Latest Books
Everything on Tax and Corporate Laws of India
To subscribe to our weekly newsletter please log in/register on Taxmann.com
