VIJAY PAL,MEERUT vs. ITO, WARD- 2(4), MEERUT

Ground nos. 1 and 3 concerning the cost of acquisition taken by the Assessing Officer at Rs. 170 per sq. yd. as against the assessee’s declared cost of acquisition at Rs. 150 per sq. yd. were not pressed. The same, therefore, stand dismissed.

Ground no. 2 is against the addition of Rs. 4,15,830/- added twice. Briefly stated facts of this ground are that the assessee declared total income of Rs. 5,51,690/-. A copy of computation income has been incorporated on page 2 of the assessment order. In such computation of income, the assessee declared income from `Capital gains’ at Rs.4,15,830/-. The learned AR contended that this income of Rs.4,15,830/- has been taken twice by the Assessing Officer in the computation of total income. The Assessing Officer is directed to verify the assessee’s contention in this regard and allow the necessary relief.

The only other ground which survives is against denial of rebate under section 54F amounting to Rs. 24,50,000/-. The assessee, in the computation of income under the head ‘Capital gains’ claimed exemption under section 54F for a sum of Rs. 24,50,000/- on account of `Construction of house’. The Assessing Officer did not allow such exemption as the assessee could not substantiate this claim. The assessee contended before the learned CIT(A) that he constructed a residential house in an earlier year on which a sum of Rs. 24,50,000/- was spent. In support of such a claim, the assessee filed a a copy of a report of registered valuer. In the absence of the assessee filing any sanction plan or design of the alleged construction of house or bills of purchase of material or labour etc., the learned CIT(A) denied such benefit, against which the assessee has come up in appeal before the Tribunal.

Having heard both the sides and perused the relevant material on record, it is seen that the assessee supported its claim under section 54F simply on the basis of the report of a registered valuer. Apart from that, no other evidence was filed in support of the construction. At the same time, the authorities below have also denied the claim without getting the valuation done from the DVO. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would meet directly if the impugned order on this issue is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer. I order accordingly and direct the Assessing Officer to decide this issue afresh as per law after allowing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

In the result, the appeal is allowed.