TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (12) TMI 704
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., probabilities and the facts and circumstances in the Appellant's case. 2. The learned CIT(A) is not justified in not giving an opportunity to the Appellant prior to passing of the appellate order which is against the principles of natural justice. 3. The learned CIT(A) is not justified in denying the exemption u/s 54F of the Act under the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case. 4. The learned CIT(A) is not justified in holding that the property at Kilpauk, Chennai was not demolished before the sale of the vacant property at Mysore under the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case. 5. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the property at Gedalahalli can by no stretch of imagination can be termed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essee has assumed wrong fact without verifying the claim of the assessee. It was submitted that the property at Kilpauk, Chennai was already demolished on 18/5/2007 whereas the capital asset in question was sold by the assessee on 07/06/2007. Therefore, as on the date of sale of the capital asset in question the property at Kulpauk, Chennai was not in existence. The CIT(A) did not accept the claim of the assessee by recording reason that the assessee has not filed any proof of demolition of the property at Kilpauk, Chennai and further the CIT(A) has also doubted the utilisation of the sale proceeds of the existing asset for acquiring or construction of the new residential house. Aggrieved by the impugned order of the CIT(A), the assessee ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... property and assessed to house tax, has been certified by the Corporation. The learned AR of the assessee has submitted that as per directions of this Bench, the assessee obtained the certificate and is being filed in support of the claim that on the date of sale of the existing asset, the residential house at Kilpauk Chennai was already demolished and therefore, the assessee was not having more than one residential house at the time of sale of the existing asset. Thus, the learned AR of the assessee has pleaded that in view of the evidence filed by the assessee, the claim of the assessee is proved. However since this record could not be filed before the AO, the same may be verified by the AO. 6. As regards the objection of the authoritie....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....TR (Kar) 243 and in the case of Smt.Vrinda P.Issac (supra). The Hon'ble High Court in the case of Fatima Bai (supra) has held in paragraphs 7 to 12 as under: "7. The s. 54(1) declares that when the assessee sells any long-term capital asset, the assessee should purchase the building within one year before the transfer or within two years after the transfer by investing capital gains. In which event the assessee will not be liable for capital gain tax. 8. The s. 54(2) declares that within one year from the date of transfer if the capital gain is not invested in purchase of building, he should deposit the amount in the 'Capital Gain Account Scheme' or else the assessee should invest the capital gains before filing of return within the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the due date for filing of returns under s. 139(4). " Thus it is clear that if the assessee has utilised the entire capital gain by purchase of a house or construction of the new house within the stipulated period, the benefit of sec.54F cannot be denied. This view has been reaffirmed by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Smt.Vrinda P.Issac (supra). Accordingly, if the assessee has constructed the new house and utilised the sale proceeds and capital gain within the period of limitation as provided u/s 54F, then the claim of the assessee u/s 54F cannot be denied. 9. As regards the objections of the authorities below in respect of the assessee owning more than two residential houses and utilisation of the sale procee....