VIVEK Y BHAT,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-5(3)(5), BANGALORE

This is an assessee’s appeal which is directed against the order of ld. CIT(A) – 5, Bangalore dated 29.08.2017 for Assessment Year 2013-14.

The grounds raised by the assessee are as under. “I have sold following 3 sites during A Y 2013-14. They are- Sale of Ananthnagar Site - Rs, 20,00,000 Sale of Nagarbhavi Site - Rs. 63,78,000 Sale of Nelamangala Site - Rs. 35,00,000 ----------------------- Total Sale Consideration - Rs, 1, 18, 78,000 Less: Commission paid - Rs. 2, 00,000 ------------------------ Net Sale Consideration - Rs. 1, 16, 78,000 During the A Y 2013-14, I have Purchased a Residential Flat. The Total Amount spent on the same is as follows: a) Purchase Consideration - Rs.86,50,000 b) Stamp Duty - Rs. 4,84,425 c) Registration Fee - Rs. 87,060

It was submitted by ld. AR of assessee that the dispute is regarding the claim of the assessee u/s. 54F which was allowed by CIT(A) to the extent of Rs. 92,21,485/- as against the claim of the assessee for Rs. 96,48,574/-. He submitted that this is the claim of the assessee that the assessee has incurred expenses on interior decoration of Rs. 15 Lakhs and Rs. 10 Lakhs during the period 15.12.2012 to 31.03.2013 and 01.04.2013 to 31.07.2013 respectively. He submitted that as per CIT(A), the assessee could not substantiate that the assessee had invested Rs. 25 Lakhs for interiors. He submitted that this is not correct because the relevant evidence in support of this claim has been filed before the authorities below and are available in paper book also which is filed before the Tribunal and in particular my attention was drawn to pages 1b to 1h of the paper book and it was pointed out that this is quotation from Dhamodar Interior Works of Rs. 15 Lakhs on pages 1b and 1c, payment vouchers on pages 1d to 1h by way of cash of Rs. 5 Lakhs on 15.04.2013, Rs. 5 Lakhs on 30.05.2013, Rs. 5 Lakhs on 20.12.2012, another Rs. 5 Lakhs on 30.01.2013 and again Rs. 5 Lakhs on 22.02.2013 totaling Rs. 25 Lakhs. He also submitted that the relevant cash book copy is also available on pages 3a and 3b of the paper book in which it can been seen that such cash payments made on the relevant dates were duly accounted for and even after that, there was closing cash balance of Rs. 9,93,729.28/- as on 31.03.2013 tallying with the Balance Sheet available on page no. 2a of the paper book. He also submitted that the assessee is not a business man and therefore, there may be some lapses on the part of the assessee to maintain proper documents but in the facts of the present case, the claim of the assessee should be allowed. The ld. DR of revenue supported the orders of authorities below.

I have considered the rival submissions. I find that as per the quotation for interior works available on page nos. 1b and 1c of the paper book, the quotation is for making wardrobes in rooms, living hall cabinets, cabinets in kitchen, cost of cots, electrical fittings, curtains, sofa set,Dining Table set, false ceilings etc. and payment vouchers are also made available which contains the name of the receiver also. This is not the case of the revenue that the Page 4 of 4 expenses on these items are not eligible for deduction u/s 54F. The case of the department is this only that required evidence is not made available. Even if some more evidence is required, the assessee may be asked to produce concerned vendor and enquiry may be made from him and then issue should be decided. In this view of the matter, I set aside the order of CIT(A) and restore the matter back to the file of AO for fresh decision in the light of above discussion after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to assessee.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.