TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (6) TMI 155
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o A.Y. 2009-10. 3. The respective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee and the Revenue read as under: ITA No.1193/Mum/2016 1) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of deduction u/s 54F on the payment of Rs. 50,00,000 made on 20/02/2010 as this amount was paid beyond the due date of filing return of income u/s 139(1), and the appellant had not deposited any amount in capital gain scheme; ignoring the fact that this amount was paid within three years of earning the Long term capital gain through sale of shares. 2) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of deduction u/s 54F on the payment of Rs. 75,00,000 made on 18/01/2012 as this payment was made beyond the period of three years of earning the Long term capital gain through sale of shares; ignoring the fact the appellant was wholly committed to making this payment on 01/04/2010, the day possession was taken. ITA No.2660/Mum/2016 1. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in allowing exemption u/s 54F to the extent of Rs. 14,75,00,000/....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....independent residential unit and, according to him the assessee had purchased three residential houses and, therefore, was ineligible for exemption u/s. 54F of the Act. Secondly, the Assessing Officer noted that the fourth flat acquired by the assessee in lieu of tenancy rights was an independent new asset acquired within a period which was prohibited by the proviso to clause (a) (ii) of Section 54F(1) of the Act and, therefore, on this count also assessee was not eligible for deduction u/s. 54F of the Act. Pertinently, in the assessment order the aforesaid two reasons prevailed when the Assessing Officer denied claim of exemption u/s. 54F of the Act. However, in the course of appellate proceedings before the CIT(A), the Assessing Officer raised another objection which was to the effect that the assessee had used borrowed monies for purchase of three residential units and, therefore, for this reason also the claim of exemption u/s. 54F of the Act was not allowable. 5. The CIT(A) has since considered all the three objections and, has in principle, upheld assessee's claim for deduction u/s. 54F of the Act. The order of the CIT(A) shows that he called for a remand report from the Ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for the purchase of the new residential house, and that the only requirement of law was that assessee should purchase the new residential house within specified period and that the source of funds is quite irrelevant. Notably, this aspect of the controversy has become final in as much as the Revenue has not raised any specific plea in the Grounds of appeal on this aspect. 8. Be that as it may, after disagreeing with the stand of the Assessing Officer to deny exemption u/s. 54F of the Act, the CIT(A) examined the schedule of payments made by the assessee for acquisition of the new flats. The CIT(A), in particular, noted that the requirement was to have invested the monies in acquisition of the new residential unit within a period of one year before or after two years from the date of transfer of the original asset. The CIT(A) also noted that the assessee was required to deposit the unspent money in the Capital gains scheme account before the due date of filing of return u/s. 139(1) of the Act. In the instant case, the CIT(A) found that the due date of filing the return specified u/s. 139(1) was 30.09.2009 and that assessee had not deposited any sum under the Capital gains scheme. T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e in lieu of surrender of tenancy rights and it was not acquired against "price in money". In this situation, the CIT(A) referred to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. T N Aravinda Reddy (120 ITR 46) to say that acquisition of fourth unit could not be construed as 'purchase' since it was not against "price in money". For the aforesaid reasons, CIT(A) held that it could not said that acquisition of the fourth flat constituted new asset so as to deny the assessee's claim for deduction u/s. 54F of the Act. Though the Revenue has contested the aforesaid decision of the CIT(A), we find no cogent reasons to interfere with the conclusion drawn by the CIT(A), which, in our view, is quite appropriate in the facts of the case and also on point of law. Thus, so far as the appeal of the Revenue s concerned, the same is hereby dismissed. 9. On the issue of quantum of exemption allowable to the assessee u/s. 54F of the Act, though the assessee has raised two grounds of appeal but at the time of hearing only one short point has been raised. The short point is to the effect that the CIT(A) while considering the total cost incurred by the assessee for acquiring the three ....