TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (8) TMI 407
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. Assessing Officer in making addition of Rs. 69,42,053/- under the head Long Term Capital Gains on account of disallowance of exemption claimed u/s 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Appellant. 3. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in giving only partial relief to the appellant u/s 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 while passing order u/s 154/250 of the Act, though deposit of Rs. 75 lacs was made by the appellant under Capital Gains Scheme on 31.03.2011. 4. That Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in totally ignoring the fact that Rs. 75 lacs has been paid by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tal Gain Accounts Scheme on or before 31st March 2011. In the present case, the assessee had demolished the existing residential property at Safdarjung Enclave, jointly owned by him, and had constructed four new flats. The Ld. AR submitted that deduction under Section 54 of the Act is allowable where a consideration received on transfer of a long term capital asset is utilized on the construction of residential house. The act of demolishing of the existing structure and construction of new structure would mean "reconstruction" of the house property. The expression "construction" is not defined under the Act. The Ld. AR relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab High Court in the case of Sadhu Singh S. Mulla Singh Vs District Board AIR 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on the following judgments: - CIT Vs Gita Duggal [2013] 30 taxmann.com 230 (Delhi) - CIT Vs Gita Duggal [2014] 52 taxmann.com 246 (SC) - SLP Dismissed - CIT vs D Ananda Basappa 309 ITR 329 (Kar.) - CIT v. K.G. Rukminiamma, 331 ITR 221 (Kar) - CIT vs Gumanmal Jain [2017] 80 taxmann.com 21 (Mad) - Circular No. 1/2015 dated 21-01-2015 issued by Hon'ble CBDT Moreover, the assessee had deposited Rs. 75 lakhs in Capital Gain Account Scheme on or before 31st March 2011. In view of the above, the Ld. AR prayed that the addition made of Rs. 69,42,053/- is liable to be deleted. 6. As regards to Ground No. 3 and 4, the Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A) has given only partial relief to the assessee u/s 54 of the Income Tax Act while passin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l relief to the assessee u/s 54 of the Income Tax Act while passing order u/s 154/250 of the Act, though deposit of Rs. 75 lacs was made by the assessee under Capital Gains Scheme on 31/03/2011 (from jointly held capital gain account with his wife). The assessee's wife is separately assessed to tax and had made separate deposit of Rs. 50 lakhs in Capital Gain Account Scheme. 7. The Ld. DR relied upon the order of the CIT(A) and Assessment order. The Ld. DR further submitted that there is tax evasion if the assessee is allowed the claim under Section 54 of the Act. 8. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. The Assessee has submitted computation of income of the assessee as well as wife of....