IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME INCOME INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.182 OF 2005 TAX APPEAL NO.182 OF 2005 TAX APPEAL NO.182 OF 2005 The Commissioner of Income Tax 10 Mumbai .. Appellant Vs. Shri Harish B.Shah ... Respondent Mr.R.G.Bhat for Appellant Mr.A.Y.Sakhare,Sr.Adv a/w Mr.V.Pereira and Mr.Aziz Khan i.b Divya Shah Associates for Respondent CORAM CORAM CORAM : Dr.S.Radhakrishnan and : Dr.S.Radhakrishnan and : Dr.S.Radhakrishnan and A.V.Nirgude, A.V.Nirgude, A.V.Nirgude, JJ JJ JJ DATE DATE DATE : 23rd June, 2008. : 23rd June, 2008. : 23rd June, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent. 2. By this appeal, Mr.Bhat learned counsel for the appellant states that he is restricting his appeal with regard to the first question of law and contends that it is a substantial question of law. The said question of law reads as under : (i) Whether on the facts and in law, the Hon’ble ITAT was justified in allowing deduction for the additinal amount awarding to Rs.30,00,000/-spent on the house property, after the acquisition of the house, for exemption u/s 54 of the I.T.Act. ? 3. We have perused the tribunal’s judgment. Mr.Bhatt also very fairly conceded that the assessee has spent Rs.30,00,000/- prior to 2 occupation certificate being issued by the Mumbai Municipal Corporation and he also concedes that this is not a case of replacement of fittings after original construction. In fact the additional sum of Rs.30,00,000/- in addition to Rs.70,00,000/- was paid by the assessee to the builder to provide certain amenities like marble flooring, granite top in the kitchen, fittings in the toilets, steel window which was not previously in existence when the amount was paid and they were installed for the first time by the builder. To put in other words, there were no replacement of fittings. 4. Under these circumstances, there is no dispute that when the assessee obtained occupation certificate. The premises was allowed to be lawfully occupied. As such, it becomes part of the value of the flat itself. Under these circumstances, we are in agreement with the tribunal’s view that the judgment of this Court in Shrin N.Petigara vs Third ITO (1987) 28 TTJ (Bom) 324 will not apply to the facts and circumstances of this case wherein it has been categorically held that the bathroom fittings were replaced by the assessee and whereas the flat was earlier in 3 good condition and further expenses incurred for plumbing and bathroom fittings were obviously additional expenses wherein in the instant case it is not so. 5. Hence, we do not find that any substantial question of law is involved. Appeal stands dismissed. {A.V.Nirgude, {A.V.Nirgude, {A.V.Nirgude, } } } (Dr.S.Radhakrishnan, (Dr.S.Radhakrishnan, (Dr.S.Radhakrishnan, J} J} J}