TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (9) TMI 348
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rder of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case and is opposed to the principles of equity, natural justice and fair play. 2. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the order of the Assessing Officer is without jurisdiction. 3. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the appellant has satisfied all the conditions for claiming exemption u/s.54F and is thereby entitled for the said exemption in the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate the fact that the appellant had in fact invested an amount higher than the net con....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....elevant submissions of the assessee and also taken note of provisions of section 54F of the Act, observed that although the assessee has reinvested consideration received for transfer of old asset within two years from the date of sale of the old asset and has also completed construction within 3 years, but has not satisfied the conditions prescribed under sub-section (4) of Section 54F of the Act, by investing the sale consideration in capital gain deposit scheme on or before furnishing return of income and hence, opined that the assessee is not entitled for deduction u/s.54F of the Act and hence, rejected deduction claim of Rs. 13,57,906/- and added back to total income. 4. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on before the extended due date of furnishing return of income u/s.139(4) & 139(5) of the Act. The ld.AR further submitted that there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the assessee has constructed house property within 3 years from the date of sale of old asset. In fact, the AO in Para 2.6 of his assessment order had categorically admitted that the assessee has completed construction within 3 years, but has rejected the claim only for the reason that consideration for transfer of original asset was not deposited in capital gain deposit scheme before filing return of income. Therefore, once the CIT(A) having accepted the fact that there is no requirement to deposit sale consideration in capital gain deposit scheme, when such conside....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....another vacant land for construction of house property and furnished necessary evidences to prove that house property was constructed later on, deductions cannot be denied merely for the reason that construction of house property was not completed within 3 years from the date of transfer of original asset. This legal principle is supported by the decision of ITAT, Chennai in the case of Mrs. Seetha Subramaniam vs. ACIT, (1996) 59 ITD 0094. In light of above legal position, if we examine the facts of present case, it is an admitted fact that the assessee has reinvested entire sale consideration of Rs. 19,20,000/- for purchase of land and constructed residential house property. It is also not in dispute that the assessee has completed constru....