Ita/152/2014 Of B R Srinivas Reddy v. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Tds)

IN THR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALOREDATED THIS THE 12[th|]DAY OF AUGUST 2014 PRESEHBN THER HON’BLE MR JUSTICE N. KUMAR AND THR HON’BLE MRS JUSTICK RATHNAKALA ITA NO.1952/201 BRITIWER BR SRINIVAS REDDY S/O RAMAIAH REDDYAGKD ABOUT 41 YBEARSNO. 108, DEVARABISANAHALLI |VARTHUR HOBLIBANGALORE|_ APPBRLLANT| (By Sri KIRAN KUMAR K, ADV.) AND: 1.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS)BANGALORENO.59, HMT BHAVANA,BBRLLARY ROADGGZANGANAGARBANGALORE-32. 2.INCOME TAX OFFICERWARD 16 (2),BANGALORENO.99, HMT BHAVANABELLARY ROADGGZANGANAGARBANGALORE-32.. RESPONDENTS| This appeal is filed Under Sec.260-A of Income Tax Act1961, praying this Hon'ble Court to Formulate the|substantial question of law as stated above and Deleting theaddition of Rs. 31,62,709/- made on the head:- ‘Income on capital gain' for the reason that the Appellant is entitled for|exemption under $.54-F of the Income-Tax Act, 1961. This appeal coming on for hearing on interlocutory|application this day, N Kumar J., delivered the following: JUDGMENT The assessee has preferred this appeal against theconcurrent findings recorded by three authorities thathe has tailed to establish the utilisation of the sale'consideration in construction of a residential house as/Claimed by him.| 2. In coming to the conclusion, the authoritieshave taken into consideration that the property in whichhe is said to have made construction did not stand inhis name as he did not produce any katha. Admittedly,there.WaSnoplansanctionthoughthesaidconstruction is said to have been made within the'sramatana where for any construction a license andsanctioned plan was required to be taken from thevillage panchayat. The fact that he obtained the planafter the construction, creates suspicion and doubt.Moreover, the affidavit and the estimate of the) contractor/engineer|WaSnotbelieved bythreeauthorities. 3. The question whether the sale considerationwas utilized for the construction of a residential house|is purely a question of fact. When three fact findingauthorities have concurrently on the basis of thematerial on record have recorded a finding that theassessee has failed to establish the said fact, noquestion of law much less substantial question of lawdo arise for consideration in this appeal. Therefore, wedo not see any merit in this appeal. Accordingly, appeal1S.dismissed.Consequently,application forcondonation of delay is also dismissed. BRN od/- | JUDGE od/- | JUDGE