TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (11) TMI 549
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....alid and unlawful because while passing such order, the learned A.O. failed to consider the submission made by the appellant in course of appeal hearing. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and law, the finding of the learned CIT(A) in his order are wholly wrong and injudicious and are opposed to the facts, and therefore, there is no justification in sustaining such assessment order. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer and not allowing the expenses through credit card of Rs. 5,22,614/- and out of which Rs. 4,16,039/- has fully proved. 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) failed to consider that these transactions were pertaining to the company and not to the appellant. Hence, the addition of Rs. 5,22,614/- is unwarranted and deserves to be deleted. 6. The appellant craves leave to amend, alter or delete any of the above grounds of appeal. 2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that case of the assessee was picked up for scrutiny assessment and the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Income....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../- The assessee claimed the deduction u/s.54F for the investments in the purchase of flat at Mumbai. The Id. AO disallowed the claim of the assessee on the ground that assessee was required to deposit the entire sale consideration in the scheme of deposits in capital gains account on or before the due date of filing of return of income. The assessee did not deposit the said amount and as such the provisions of sec. 54F are not applicable. It was further stated that the assessee has relied on the case laws applicable to return filed u/s.139(4), but in the present case, the assessee has submitted the return u/s.139(l) and as such the deduction is not allowable u/s.54F. The Id. CIT(A) has upheld the contention of the Id.AO. Section 54F of the Act reads as under:- [Capital gain on transfer of certain capital assets not to be charged in case of investment in residential house. (1) [Subject to the provisions of sub-section (4), where in the case of an assessee being an individual or a Hindu undivided family], the capital gain arises from the transfer of any long-term capital asset, not being a residential house (hereinafter in this section referred ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the due date applicable for furnishing the return of income under sub-section 1 of sec. 139. It is thus submitted that the deposit is required to be made before the due date of filing of the return only if the assessee wants to utilize the money for purchase of the property within two years. If the assessee purchases the property u/s.139 including sub-section 4, then he has a time to purchase the property within the time limit prescribed u/s.139(4) and accordingly he is entitled to get the deduction. In the instant case, the assessee has already advanced the money to the purchaser before the time limit prescribed u/s. 139(4) and got the property registered. In such an event, he would be entitled to get the deduction for the amount utilized for the purchase of house within the stipulated period. Attention is drawn to the judgment of the Hon. Gauhati High Court in the case of CIT V/s. Rajesh Kumar Jalan reported in 286 IT R p.274 and in the case of CIT V/s. Jagtar Singh Chawla 259 CTR p,388 (P & H). The Pune Bench and the Hyderabad Bench have followed the said judgments. The copies of the judgments are enclosed from Page 71 to P.89 of the PB. The Indore Bench has t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the case of ACIT Vs. Smt. Asha Ashok Boob 69 SOT 321. Decision of the coordinate bench in the case of Nipun Mahrotra Vs. ACIT 297 ITR 0110 (Bang. Trib). Ld. Counsel therefore vehemently argued that the assessee is entitled for deduction in the light of the case laws relied by him. 5. Per contra, Ld. D.R. opposed the submissions and submitted that there is no ambiguity under the law. He has taken us through the relevant provisions of law and submitted that where there is no ambiguity under the law, the law is to be applied in the strict sense. He submitted that the case laws as relied by the Ld. Counsel are distinguishable on the facts. 6. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. The claim of deduction was denied by the assessing officer on the basis that the assessee had filed its return of income on 29.9.2012 and plots were sold on 27.3.2012 for Rs. 30 lakhs and the assessee had purchased residential flat in Mumbai on 3.12.2012 for a sum of Rs. 2.57 crores. As per the provisions of the Act, the assessee was required to deposit the entire sale consideration in the claim of deposit of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....k place. As per the judgment of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court, the provisions of section 54F(4) would not be attracted in the event if the assessee has purchased or constructed the residential house within the period prescribed under section 54(1) of the Act. In the case in hand, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the assessee had purchased within two years [the period prescribed u/s.54(F(1)] a new asset on 05/10/2009 from the date of transfer of the original asset. The Revenue has not cited or placed on record any contrary judgment by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court or Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, respectfully following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs K.Ramachandra Rao (supra), we hereby set aside the impugned order and direct the AO to re-compute the assessed income after granting the benefit of section 54F of the Act to the assessee. 7. In the present case, the plot was sold on 27.2.2012. Due date of filing of return was 29.9.2012. Payment made to builder of Rs. 10 lakhs on 3.10.2012. Further payment made to the builder of Rs. 15 lakhs on 2.11.2012 and agreement for purchase was registere....