TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (11) TMI 938
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2. Briefly stated the assessee being doctor by profession was assessed u/s 143(3) by Ld. Income Tax Officer-Ward-1(3) [AO], Thane on 26/12/2011 at Rs. 27.30 Lacs after denial of deduction u/s 54F as against returned income of Rs. 8.23 Lacs filed by the assessee on 16/09/2010. 3. During impugned AY, it was noted that the assessee sold a plot of land on 21/10/2008 for a total sale consideration of Rs. 45 Lacs and computed Long Term Capital Gain [LTCG] of Rs. 23.26 Lacs after adjusting indexed cost of acquisition of Rs. 21.73 Lacs. Against the resultant LTCG of Rs. 23.26 Lacs, deduction u/s 54F was claimed against investments made by the assessee in purchase of new flat. Accordingly, the assessee was asked to substantiate her claim with....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... perusal of computations as made by Ld. AO reveal that there are computational errors in the calculations since revised indexed cost of acquisition works out to be Rs. 19,06,640/- [7,99,347/- x 582/244] instead of Rs. 26,28,360/- as taken by Ld. AO and the resultant LTCG works out to be Rs. 26,28,360/- instead of Rs. 19,06,640/- as taken by Ld. AO. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee contested the same without any success before Ld. CIT(A) vide impugned order dated 06/08/2013 wherein Ld. CIT(A) concurred with the stand of Ld. AO by observing as under:- 4. I have carefully considered the facts on record and submission of Ld. A.R. I find that the appellant has initially booked two flats in Claremont Building and undisputedly has made the p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ant, the investment made by the appellant can only be considered for the purposes of deduction u/s. 54F of the Act. Undisputedly, the appellant has made investment till 31st March 2009 to the tune of Rs. 14,27,702/- only and hence the same can only be considered for the purposes of section 54F of the Act. Consequently, the investment made by her husband cannot be considered for claiming deduction u/s. 54F in the hands of appellant as her husband is an independent assessee. 4.1 On perusal of the Circulars relied upon by the Ld. A.R., it emerges that the allotment of flats or houses in any Co-operative Society or a building constructed by the Builders shall be at par with the allotment of flats under a self Financing Scheme ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the assessee is in further appeal before us. 5. The Ld. Authorized Representative for Assessee [AR], Shri M.Subramanian, drawing our attention to the documents placed in the paper-book contested the stand of lower authorities. Reliance has been placed on several judicial pronouncements to support the stand that the assessee was entitled for deduction u/s 54F. Per Contra, Ld. Departmental Representative [DR], submitted that the assessee failed to fulfill the conditions prescribed by Section 54F and therefore, the deduction was rightly been denied to the assessee. 6. We have carefully heard the rival contentions and perused relevant material on record including judicial pronouncements as cited before us. So far as the adoption of Sale ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e dated 10/09/2009, the said booking has been transferred to another property situated at Westgate as evidenced by fresh allotment letter dated 22/10/2009 issued by the same builder. The explanation of the assessee, in this regard, as evident from the documents on record, is that the construction of the building Claremont was not coming as per the schedule and therefore, the assessee after a mutual discussion with the builder decided to shift the payment to another building viz. Westgate. We find the explanation to be plausible one since the delay in construction projects is common as well as regular feature of this industry. However, the assessee could not be penalized for these delays since the assessee, in good faith, had made the invest....