TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (1) TMI 278
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and or on facts in upholding the deduction U/S.54F to the extent of Rs. 4,73,936/-. 2.2 That in the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Ld. CIT(A) ought not to have upheld the deduction u/s.54F to the extent of Rs. 4,73,936/-. 3.1 The Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the entire investment made in the purchase of bunglow at Sahajand Palace was eligible for exemption u/s.54F and same should not have been restircd to Rs. 11,11,000. 4.1 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the validity of reopening of the asstt. u/s.147. It is therefore prayed that fully exemption should be allowed u/s.54F." 3. The only issue raised by the assessee is that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in granting exemption u/s 54 of the Act for Rs. 4,73,936/- out of the total exemption claimed for Rs. 11,11,000/-. 4. Briefly stated facts are that the assessee is an individual and engaged in the business of Labour work for electric fitting. The assessee is also deriving income from other sources under the head interest income. The assessee was the co-owner in the property bearing block no. 755-756 admeasuring about 23169 sq. Meters at Ghuma along with Shri Suresh A. Patel and Shri Chan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the delay occurred due to the unavoidable situation. However, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition in part made by the Ld. AO by observing as under: "5. I have perused the facts of the case as enumerated by A.O. and as submitted by appellant. I have perused the case laws relied on by A.O. as well as appellant. After careful consideration of facts, submission and contention of both A.O. as well as of appellant, ground wise adjudication is as follows: The appellant's one and only ground is against the addition of long term capital gain of Rs. 957447 denying the benefit to appellant u/s 54F of the Act. It is observed from impugned assessment order that appellant failed to reflect the transaction of sale of land co owned with two other person and despite the fact that appellant's original return of income is presently before the Hon'ble ITAT but this issue was not there. The A.O. after receipt of credible information, recorded satisfaction and after taking statutory approval, issued notice u/s 148 of the Act. The appellant also filed return in response to this notice u/s 148 of the Act though beyond the time limit as granted by A.O. in the notice. The appellant ref....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Hon'ble Gujarat high court in the case of Harsutrai J. Raval Vs. CIT (2002) 255 ITR 315 held that if the conditions u/s 54F of the Act are substantially satisfied then assessee is entitled for deduction. Hon'ble Gujarat high court full such in the case of CIT Vs. Mormasji Manchariji Vaid (2001) 250 ITR 542 categorically held that it is the date of execution of immovable property rather than date of registration which is all important The appellant's case is squarely covered with Hon'ble Delhi high court decision in the case of Balraj Vs. CIT (2002) 254 ITR 22. It was held by Hon'ble high court that- "For the purpose of attracting the provisions of sec. 54 of the IT. Act, it is not necessary that the assessee should become the owner of the property. Sec. 54 of the Act speaks of purchase." Hon'ble high court relied on supreme court judgment in the case of CIT Vs. T. N. Aravinda Reddy (1979) 120 ITR 46 where it has been held that "The word "purchase" occurring in section 54(1) of the Act had to be given its common meaning viz. buy for a price or equivalent of price by payment in kind or adjustment towards a debt or for other monetary consideration." ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stered in his name due to the situation which was beyond his control. The Ld. CIT(A) admitted the claim of the assessee and relaxed the provision for depositing money in the capital gain account scheme before filing the income tax return as prescribed under the provision of Section 54F of the Act. Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) allowed the relief to the assessee proportionately for the amount invested in the property for Rs. 11.11 lacs. The only grievance of the assessee before us is that he has invested money of Rs. 19.34 lacs which should have been considered for exemption u/s 54F of the Act. It is a fact on record that the assessee before the AO claimed to have invested Rs. 11.11 lacs. However, the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) claimed the first time to have made the payment of Rs. 19.34 lacs out of which a sum of Rs. 8,34,000/- was paid in April & May 2011, i.e. the date beyond the period of three years but before getting the registration of the property. From the above, it is clear that the assessee has never filed anything about the payment of Rs. 8.34 lacs before the AO. Therefore, the same needs to be verified by the AO. 9. The next issue arises whether the assessee is eli....