Case Law Details
Sudeep Chandra Vs ITO (ITAT Hyderabad)
Cost of acquisition is the price paid by the assessee for the purchase of the house and also the expenditure towards the repairs made by him to make the house habitable and no other expenditure is to be allowed u/s 54 of the Act. As regards the details of the expenditure furnished in page 31 of the paper book of the assessee which are being sought as exempt by the assessee, I find that except for the expenditure incurred by the assessee towards electrical, water leakage problem and plumbing work, no other expenditure is required to be incurred for making the house habitable. Assessing Officer is directed to allow the same as cost of improvement and allow the same, if found to be in order.
FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGEMENT
This is assessee’s appeal for the A.Y 2016-17 against the order of the CIT (A)-6, Hyderabad, dated 27.05.2019.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee individual, filed his return of income for the A.Y 2016-17 on 27.03.2018 admitting income of Rs.7,14,270/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and during the assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee, alongwith his mother, sold their house property admeasuring 875 sq. yards during the financial year 2015-16 at Banjara Hills Hyderabad, for a sale consideration of Rs.2,85,00,000 and that the assessee is a 50% shareholder. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has claimed deduction u/s 54F of the Act for a sum of Rs.3,87,85,200/- in respect of the house purchased jointly with his mother Mrs. Radhay Rani on 1.6.2016 having entered into an agreement for construction of house with Jayabhen Properties (P) Ltd. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has claimed Rs.55.00 lakhs towards furnitures and fixtures including other fittings such as Air Conditioner, Sofa Set, Double Bed, Dining Table set and other interior fitting kitchen equipment etc., and also Rs.14,85,000/- as expenditure towards additional works in the house. The Assessing Officer disallowed the same holding it to be not for making the house habitable. He, therefore, only allowed the cost of acquisition and indexed cost of acquisition and cost of the improvement to the extent of Rs.1,59,00,100 being the assessee’s share. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT (A) who confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer and the assessee is in second appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal:
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
