Where house constructed by assessee was not found to be habitable, deduction under section 54F could not be allowed
In the instant case the assessee claimed deduction under section 54F on ground that she had purchased a house. When the AO carried enquiry, he found that there was no construction as mentioned in the sale deed. Instead, there was a small construction consisting of two rooms made of hollow bricks. Accordingly, the claim of deduction was disallowed by AO. Further, the CIT (A) upheld the order of the AO. Aggrieved assessee filed the instant appeal.
The Tribunal held in favour of revenue as under:
1) The assessee had not placed necessary evidence in support of his claim to show that the said construction was in habitable condition. A construction in inhabitable position couldn’t be equated with a residential house;
2) If a person cannot live in premises, then such premises cannot be considered as a residential house. Investment in the construction would be complete as a house only when such house becomes habitable;
3) The evidence brought on record by the AO clearly shows that the property purchased by the assessee would not fall within the description of residential house. Thus, the claim of the assessee couldn’t be allowed under section 54F - Smt. Usharani Kalidindi v. ITO [2013] 37 taxmann.com 360 (Hyderabad - Trib.)
In the instant case the assessee claimed deduction under section 54F on ground that she had purchased a house. When the AO carried enquiry, he found that there was no construction as mentioned in the sale deed. Instead, there was a small construction consisting of two rooms made of hollow bricks. Accordingly, the claim of deduction was disallowed by AO. Further, the CIT (A) upheld the order of the AO. Aggrieved assessee filed the instant appeal.
The Tribunal held in favour of revenue as under:
1) The assessee had not placed necessary evidence in support of his claim to show that the said construction was in habitable condition. A construction in inhabitable position couldn’t be equated with a residential house;
2) If a person cannot live in premises, then such premises cannot be considered as a residential house. Investment in the construction would be complete as a house only when such house becomes habitable;
3) The evidence brought on record by the AO clearly shows that the property purchased by the assessee would not fall within the description of residential house. Thus, the claim of the assessee couldn’t be allowed under section 54F - Smt. Usharani Kalidindi v. ITO [2013] 37 taxmann.com 360 (Hyderabad - Trib.)
No comments:
Post a Comment