TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (8) TMI 374
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eals have been arose by the single order vide which the parties are also the same and the matter of controversy can conveniently be adjudicated by a single order. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of his income on 12.08.2009 declaring total income to the tune of Rs. 6,03,245/- for the A.Y.2009-10. The return was processed u/s.143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( in short "the Act") accepting the returned of income. Thereafter, the case was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s.143(2) of the Act was sent on 24.08.2010 which was duly served upon the assessee. Subsequently, further notice u/s.142(1) of the Act alongwith detailed questionnaire was sent to the assessee on 09.02.2012, 18.07.2011 and 08.09.2011. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lready been purchased by the assessee and there is nothing left on which the assessee can claim the exemption u/s.54F. Hence, the assessee will not be able to claim the deduction u/s.54F. Hence, the assessee will not be able to claim the deduction u/s.54F on the amount deposited in the Capital Gain A/c. Scheme. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,31,91,550/- without appreciating the fact that the assessee has not / could not subsequently utilized this amount for the purpose of the new asset on which deduction u/s.54F has been claimed. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, whether the Ld. CIT(A) is right in holding that asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erani Finance and Investment (P) Ltd. vide agreement dated 12th May, 2008. It has specifically mentioned in the agreement that the above consideration was paid for surrendering of tenancy right and no other assets. In view of this, the assessee was asked to justify the claim of cost of furniture at Rs. 7,23,902/- against receipt of tenancy rights. The explanation of the assessee is that tenancy property was given with all the structure as it was and hence only cost was adjusted against furniture. The furniture is taken separately, it would not have given any value and had to be scraped. There was no possibility of having any short term capital gain on sale of furniture. Since the Assessing Officer was not satisfied, therefore declined the c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....emption in respect of one residential house which has already been purchased by the assessee and thereafter nothing could be claimed u/s.54F of the Act. Therefore, in the said circumstances the deletion of addition of Rs. 1,31,91,550/- is wrong against law and facts and is liable to be set aside. However, on the other hand learned representative of the assessee has refuted the said contentions. Before going further it is necessary to advert the finding of CIT(A) on record. CIT(A) has decided this issue in para no. 4.3 which is hereby reproduced below:- "4.3 I have carefully perused the assessment order and appellant's submission. The assessee has received consideration of Rs. 2,75,00,000/- on transfer of tenancy right and after claiming br....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... under section 45 as income of the previous year in which the period of three years from the date of the transfer of the original asset expires; and (ii) the assessee shall be entitled to withdraw the unutilized amount in accordance with the scheme aforesaid. Hence, the action of the A.O. in restricting the exemption u/s.54F without considering the fact, that the balance amount remained with the assessee after the purchase of house property was deposited in Capital Gains Deposit Saving Account, is not in accordance with the provisions of Income Tax Act. Hence, this ground of appeal is allowed." 6.1 In view of the finding mentioned above apparently, the assessee has received consideration of Rs. 2,75,00,000/- on transfer of tenancy right ....