SUNIL KUMAR SHARMA Vs. ITO
LAWS(IT)-2014-10-5
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Decided on October 21,2014

SUNIL KUMAR SHARMA Appellant
VERSUS
ITO Respondents

JUDGEMENT

B.C.Meena, Member (A) - (1.) BOTH these cross appeals emanate from the order of CIT (Appeals), Ghaziabad dated 08.06.2012 for the Assessment Year 2008 -09.
(2.) THE assessee filed return of income on 29.09.2008 declaring income at Rs. 3,29,865/ -. The assessee is a Doctor doing medical profession in the name and style as M/s. Lifeline Hospital. The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 43,27,657/ - for not allowing the benefit u/s. 54F of the Income -tax Act, 1961 and also made an addition of Rs. 15 lacs towards the unsecured loans. The Assessing Officer also made addition on account of low household withdrawals and unexplained cash credits. However, the revenue is in appeal against the deletion of addition of Rs. 15 lacs against unexplained advance and assessee is in appeal against not allowing the benefit u/s. 54F of Rs. 43,27,657/ -. The grounds of appeal taken by the assessee read as under: - "1. That the addition of Rs. 43,27,657/ - on account of disallowance of exemption claimed u/s. 54F is illegal and unjustified and, therefore, ought to be deleted. 2. That disallowance or exemption under section 54F on the ground that the assessee already owned two houses as on the date of purchase of new house whereas the said two houses were firstly owned by the Hindu Undivided Family, not by the assessee in his individual capacity and secondly, one of the said house was admittedly non -residential house, is illegal and unjustified and, therefore, exemption under section 54F ought to be allowed to the assessee. That disallowance of exemption under section 54F on the ground that new house situate at Simrauli, Hapur is not residential house, is illegal and unjustified and, therefore, exemption under section 54F ought to be allowed to the assessee.
(3.) THAT alternatively, even otherwise disallowance of exemption under section 54F is illegal and unjustified because assessee had purchased new residential house (as admitted by the Assessing Officer himself) at Indirapuram, Ghaziabad and, therefore, even otherwise exemption under section 54F ought to be allowed to the assessee.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.