TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (11) TMI 347
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....961 (here-in-after referred to as "the Act") relevant to the Assessment Year 2013-2014. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: The Appellant objects to the order U/s 250 dated 27.09.2017 passed by Hon Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)-13,Ahmedabad on the following amongst other grounds of appeal. (1) (a) That the Hon C I T (APPEALS) has erred in not allowing deduction of RS 6450000 u/s 54 for investment in acquiring of new flat. (b) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the appellants genuine claim for investment of RS 6450000 ought to be allowed u/s 54 of the I T ACT 1961 (2) (a) That the Hon C I T(Appeals) erred in observing and holding that the for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....emption claimed under section 54 of the Act for Rs. 64,50,000/- only. 4. The necessary facts as culled out from the order of the authorities below are that the assessee in the present case is an individual and non-resident assessee. The assessee in the year under consideration has claimed exemption under section 54F of the Act for an amount of Rs. 50,51,000/- only and Rs. 14 lakh under 54(2) of the Act. The impugned amount of exemption was on account of the investment made in the construction of the property for Rs. 50,51,000/- and the deposit of Rs. 14 lakh in the capital gain account scheme. 4.1 However, the AO during the assessment proceedings found that the assessee has not filed any documentary evidence establishing the fact that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rty within 2 years from the date when the property was sold. As such, the time limit for purchase of the new property expired on 15 March 2015 whereas the assessee received the possession dated 15 March 2016 which is almost after the lapse of one year. Thus the condition as specified under section 54 has not been fulfilled. Thus the learned CIT (A) disregarded the contention of the assessee and confirmed the order of the AO. 8. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 9. The learned AR before us filed a paper book running from pages 1 to 34 and contended that the entire amount for the purchase of the property was paid and deposited in the capital gain account scheme within the prescribe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t case is identical to the facts of the case of the brother of the assessee. For this purpose, the learned AR drew our attention on the assessment orders of the assessee's brother which is placed on record. 10. On the other hand the learned DR before us contended that the assessee was required to purchase the house within a period of 2 years but he has failed to do so. Likewise, there was no evidence filed by the assessee establishing the fact whether he has deposited a sum of Rs. 14 lakhs in the capital gain account scheme. Even the entry shown in the bank account of the assessee does not suggest so. 11. The learned DR further submitted that any mistake committed by the AO in the case of the brother of the assessee does not mean that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that once the assessee booked flat with builder and started making payment of instalment. Further, the builder was to handover the possession of the flat to assessee on completion of construction. Then such act of the assessee is to be considered as construction of new residential house not the purchase of property. Accordingly the time limit will extend to 3 years from the date of transfer of property to complete the construction. 12.2 In view of the above, we hold that the assessee cannot be denied the benefit of exemption available to him under the provisions of section 54/54F of the Act on account of the delay on the part of the builder. 12.3 With respect to the deposit of Rs. 14 lakhs in the capital gain account scheme, we have ....