TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (3) TMI 26
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f income for A.Y. 07-08 on 10.04.2007 declaring total income at Rs. Nil which was subsequently revised on 18.04.2009 with income of Rs. 17,57,310/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and thereafter the assessment was framed under section 143(3) vide order dated 24.11.2009 and the total income was determined at Rs. 31,28,020/-. Aggrieved by the order of A.O., Assessee carried the matter before CIT(A). CIT(A) vide order dated 07.10.2010 granted substantial relief to the Assessee. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the Revenue is now in appeal before us and the effective ground raised by the Revenue:- 1. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts and circumstances of the case in allowing the deduction u/s 54F of the Act of Rs. 13,70,715/-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y the order of A.O., Assessee carried the matter before CIT(A). CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the Assessee deleted the addition by holding as under:- 5.2 I have considered the facts of the case and arguments of the learned A.R. carefully. The legal position emanating from the decisions cited by the appellant have also been perused. It is seen that during the year under consideration, the appellant had sold a plot of land situated at Jayendra Park Housing Society Ltd. on 26/03/2007 for Rs.60 lacs. After deducting the cost of acquisition and indexed cost of improvement in respect of such property, the appellant earned capital gain from sale of the plot amounting to Rs.46,99,597/. Out of such capital gain, appellant claimed de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....The contention of the appellant that nowhere the section specifies that the investment in new residential property cannot be made prior to the date of transfer or receipt of sale consideration and that had it been the case, the legislature would not have allowed qualification of new investment one year prior to the date of transfer as it is a matter of common sense that the sale consideration would not have been received by that date i.e. prior to the date of transfer appears to be reasonable and logical. The very fact that the legislature has allowed investment in new property one year prior to the date of transfer establishes in no uncertain terms that it need not be the sale consideration out of which the investment should be made for qu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... analogy. It is further contended that it is also not necessary that sale consideration has to be invested in construction otherwise it would have been specifically mentioned in the said clause by the Legislature, which otherwise speaks only of completion of the construction within a period of 3 years from the date of sale and not commencement of construction. Thus, it is implied that when the date of commencement of construction is not relevant and specified in the Clause by the Legislature, the question of restricting the exemption u/s. 54 of the Act to the amount of investment in construction does not arise and would be contradictory to the analogy of Clause (a) as discussed hereinabove. 5.4 In the instant case, the sale deed of the p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sale of the old building. Similarly, the ITAT, Mumbai Bench in the case of Asstt. CIT v/s. Dr. P.S. Pasricha (2008) 20 SOT 468 (Mumbai) has held that "Nowhere it has been mentioned that the same funds must be utilized for the purchase of new residential house. The requirement of law is that assessee should purchase a residential house within the specified period and source of fund is quite irrelevant". Interestingly, the Mumbai Bench in the case of Mrs. Prem P. Shah, Sanjeev P. Shah V/s. ITO ( 2006) 282 ITR (AT) 211 (Mumbai) has held that "even where the assessee has utilized sale consideration for other purposes and for the purpose of new asset acquired funds from other sources, he is entitled for benefit u/s.54." Respectfully following th....