2022 (7) TMI 1138

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... its return of income for A.Y. 2015-16 on 31.03.2017 declaring total income of Rs.22,20,040/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS and the statutory notice u/s. 143(2) was issued. Subsequently notice u/s. 142(1) along with questionnaire was issued. 2.2 The Ld.AO observed that assessee had income from property, Business, Capital Gain and Income from other sources filed his return of income on 31.03.2017 declaring an income of Rs.22,20,040/-. It was observed that the assessee sold 9 residential flats and also commercial properties, and invested in residential site on 02.11.2015, for the construction of residential houses. The Ld.AO disallowed the exemption claimed u/s 54 and Sec 54 F as below and concluded the assessmen....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rcular No. 667 dated 18/10/1993 in support of its contention. Based on the assessee's submissions, the Ld.CIT(A) observed and held as under: "6. I have carefully considered the above written submissions filed and the case laws relied on by the appellant in substantiating his claim. The fixed assets Schedule filed before me has also been perused. On perusal it is seen that there is only one residential property in Thyagaraja Nagar appearing the fixed assets schedule and all others are commercial buildings, site and agricultural lands and therefore the finding of the Assessing Officer that the appellant had more than one residential property other than new asset on the date of transfer of the original asset is not justified. The cond....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ad invested from 15/09/2014 to 02/11/2015 in the site a sum of Rs.5,25,00,000/- with the intention to construct a residential house out of the sale proceeds of the properties sold. The appellant relied on Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Fathima Bai v. I T 0 (2010) 32 (1) I T C L 97 (Karn - HC) for the preposition that he had utilised the capital gains for the purpose of purchase/construct a residential property before the extended due date U/s.139(4) of the Act wherein is was held that the investment in the new asset be made before the initial due date and not th#. extended due date is an untenable contention. Further the appellant has. substantiated that the construction of the residential house has been completed with in the spec....