Rajiv Ghai v.Asst. CIT (IT) (2024)109 ITR 439 (Delhi)(Trib)

S. 54F : Capital gains-Investment in a residential house-Cost of improvement-Indexed cost of acquisition 1Cost of installation of lift and sundry expenses-Expenses to make house habitable-Allowable as deduction-Purchase of house in name of parents-Absence from India-Payment from assessee’s account 1House gifted to assessee by parents 1Exemption allowable [S. 45, 48]

The assessee sold a residential house  and in the computation of long-term capital gains from the sale claimed indexed cost of acquisition.  The Assessing Officer held  that the claim was based on valuation report of a registered valuer and disallowed part of indexed cost of improvement, on the ground of insufficient evidence from vague photographs regarding the year of incurrence of expenditure. On appeal the Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer acknowledged that certain elements like air conditioning, modular kitchen, and submersible pump, etc., were not considered part of the building. However, the Assessing Officer disputed the allowance of expenses related to these improvements. Despite agreeing that the valuation report adhered to CPWD guidelines, the Assessing Officer objected to vague photographs presented by the assessee as evidence. The assessee argued that these improvements enhance the property value, and the authorities inconsistently disallowed expenses. The Assessing Officer failed to prove the inaccuracies in the valuer’s statement, and selective reading of the sale agreement is  not sufficient for disallowance. That the Assessing Officer could not decide the need for a lift. Considering the 90 year old father was living with the assessee, the amount incurred for installation of lift was an allowable item of cost of improvement. The amount paid  with regard to installation of the lift and the other sundry expenses to make the house habitable and hence the amounts are  also to be allowed.  That the investments had been made by the assessee from his bank account for payment to the seller of the property and the parents had gone to registration owing to the absence of the assessee in India. Further, the registered property had also been gifted to the assessee by the parents  Hence, there is  no ground to interfere with the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) in view of the rule of purposive construction and object of section 54F of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and the deduction under section 54F is  to be allowed on the house registered in the name of the parents of the assessee.(AY. 2016-17)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*