TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (1) TMI 1572
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he assessment year 2014-15 passed U/s.250(6) r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act. 2. The Revenue has raised five grounds in its appeal however the crux of the issue is that the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance made by the Ld.AO to the tune of Rs. 1,72,35,484/- with respect to the disallowance of deduction U/s.54(2) of the Act for not depositing the residue sale proceeds in capital gain scheme account within the stipulated period U/s.139(1) of the Act. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual filed his return of income for the assessment year 2014- 15 electronically on 05.02.2016 declaring total income of Rs. 65,66,850/-. Initially the return was processed U/s.143(1) of the Act and subsequently selected fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assessee and added to the Long Term Capital Gain the amount of Rs. 1,72,35,494/-. 5. On appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) citing various decisions of higher judiciary allowed the appeal of the assessee in his favour by observing as under:- "10.1 have gone through the facts of the case and have also considered the rival submissions. In view of that, the case is discussed as under. 11. The only question that needs to be answered in the present case of the appellant is that whether the unutilised amount of capital gains at Rs. 1,72,35,494/- which was not appropriated towards construction of new house property before the due date for filing of the return of income as envisaged u/s 139(1) or which was not deposited in the notified Capital Gains Accoun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... asset, as envisaged u/s 54(1), the appellant was eligible for deduction u/s 54 even if the unappropriated capital gains was not deposited in the capital gains account scheme before the date of filing of return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act. In this regard, the appellant has furnished copy of the Agreement for Construction of Residential Building, the approved map of the building and the relevant bank account statements to reflect the amount withdrawn for construction of the residential house. I have perused the same and it is found from the documents that the construction of the residential house was carried out by the appellant and got completed within the stipulated time as envisaged in section 54 of the Act. 13. I have also perused ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....efit of section 54 F, then he should deposit the said capital gain in an account which is duly notified by the Central Government. In other words, if he wants the claim of exemption from payment of income tax by retaining the cash, then the said amount is to be invested in the said account. If the intention is not to retain cash but to invest in construction or any purchase of the property and if such investment is made within the period stipulated therein; then section 54 F (4) is not at all attracted and, therefore, the contention that the assessee has not deposited the amount in the bank account as stipulated and, therefore, he is not entitled to the benefit even though he has invested the money in construction, is also not correct." 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... not transferred to the scheme account it was held in nationalized bank until it was utilized for construction of the building and therefore it was only a technical breach. The Ld.DR could not controvert to the submission of the Ld.AR that the amount remained as deposit in the nationalized bank until it was utilized for the construction of the residential house. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the material on record. At the outset we find this issue squarely covered by the decision of the Chennai Bench of the Tribunal in ITA No.1167/Mds/2016 vide order dated 15.09.2016 wherein on the identical situation it was held that such small technical breach will not disentitle the assessee the benefit of Section 54 of th....