TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (10) TMI 543
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and both for the asst. yr. 2006-07. 2. Shri K. Ravi represented on behalf of the assessees and Shri Shaji P. Jacob represented on behalf of the Revenue. Detailed arguments have been placed by both sides. In both the cases, in Form No. 36, in column No. 9 being date of communication of the order appealed against, the date has been mentioned as 24th Oct., 2008. However, the appeals had been filed on 17th Aug., 2009. The orders of the learned CIT(A) in the case of both the assessees were passed on 16th June, 2009. It was submitted by the learned Authorized Representative that this was a mistake in col. No. 9 in Form No. 36. The date of communication of the orders of the CIT(A) has been brought before the registry as a mistake which ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the course of assessment proceedings, denied the assessee's claim of deduction under s. 54F on the basis that the assessee had invested in Capital Gains Account Scheme, the deposit period of which was only for three months and it was not known whether the assessee had constructed any house within three months so as to claim exemption. The AO invoked s. 50C of the Act enhancing the sale consideration by Rs. 8,80,000 of which 1/3rd amount was to be brought to tax by the AO as share of income denying exemption under s. 54F of the Act. 7. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee went in appeal before the learned CIT(A) who, vide his order dt. 16th June, 2009, dismissed the appeal of the assessee by stating that the deposit was m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ount from the sale consideration is only to be invested as deposit in the Capital Gains Account Scheme and finally finds its way for the construction or purchase of a property. All that s. 54F of the Act contemplates is that a new house property should be purchased within one year before or two years after the date of transfer or should be constructed within three years after the date of transfer. He submitted that the AO was under the impression that the Capital Gains Account Scheme should allow the assessee to withdraw the amount for the purpose of construction which was settled by the CIT(A) and alter having verified the bank statements noted that the amounts deposited in the capital gains deposit scheme were kept under lien to avail the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is not utilized by him for purchase of new asset before the date of furnishing the return of income under s. 139, shall only be deposited in such an account before the date which in this case is 31st March, 2008. The assessee had purchased the new asset on 19th Oct., 2007 which is well within the time-limit under the Act. Thus, the assessee has fulfilled the condition prescribed in s. 54F for claiming the deduction. For this proposition, he has relied on the decision of Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in the case of CIT vs. Rajesh Kumar Jalan (2006) 206 CTR (Gau) 361 : (2006) 157 Taxman 398 (Gau) and on the decision of Karnataka High Court in the case of Fathima Bai vs. ITO (2009) 32 DTR (Kar) 243, copies of which were placed on record. Both th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....led a return in order to comply with the provisions of s. 139(4) and more so, the learned CIT(A) identified that the amount proposed to be paid and claimed deduction under s. 54F was not the same as considered by the AO for holding the same in the Capital Gains Deposit Scheme and that too only for three months. Therefore, analyzing these facts in a manner which the learned counsel for the assessee proposed and submitted as of now may be considered in the light of the paper book and noted as available to the authorities below in accordance with provisions of the IT Act. 12. We have heard the rival submissions and considered the material available on record. We are inclined to hold that the assessee in order to comply with the provi....