TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (1) TMI 1075
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ome Tax (Appeals)-3, Chennai [CIT(A)] on 13-12-2019 in the matter of separate assessments framed by Ld. Assessing Officer (AO) for different assessees u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act on 30-12-2018 / 31-12-2018. The facts as well as issues are quite identical in all the appeals. The grounds raised in ITA No.495/Chny/2020 read as under: - 1. The order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to the law and the facts of the case. 2.1 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing partial relief to the assessee in respect of amount spent towards construction of new property without taking cognizance of the fact that the assessee has not fulfilled the conditions stipulated in section 54F of the I.T. Act. 2.2 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ur for Rs.11.30 Crores and claimed deduction u/s 54F. 3.2 The assessee computed its share in the sale consideration for Rs.495 Lacs. The assessee computed Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG) of Rs.478.99 Lacs and claimed deduction u/s 54F for proportionate investment made in residential land for Rs.254.67 Lacs. Since entire sale consideration was not invested, the deduction u/s 54F was claimed proportionately for Rs.246.43 Lacs and taxable LTCG were computed at Rs.232.55 Lacs which were offered to tax. 3.3 The Ld. AO re-computed assessee' share in the sale consideration for Rs.513.67 Lacs. The indexed cost was computed as Rs.2.20 Lacs. The assessee was asked to submit proof for having invested unutilized amount in Capital Gain Account Sche....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Capital Gains Account Scheme. Accordingly, the deduction so claimed u/s 54F was denied by Ld. AO. Appellate Proceedings 4. The Ld. CIT(A) noted the schedule of payment received by the assessee upon sale of property and the investment so made in various financial years as under: - No. Financial Year Amount Recd. (Rs.) Amount invested (Rs.) 1. Up to 31.03.2009 Rs.275 Lacs -- 2. 2009-10 Rs.290 Lacs -- 3. 2010-11 Rs.1279 Lacs Rs.1152.70 Lacs 4. 2011-12 Rs.950 Lacs Rs.362.02 Lacs 5. 2012-13 Rs.466 Lacs Rs.231.98 Lacs 6. 2013-14 Rs.40 Lacs Rs.9.73 Lacs Total Rs.3300 Lacs Rs.1756.45 Lacs It was noted that up-to 31.03.2011, the owners re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l provisions to promote investment in housing sector and encourage investments in acquisition of residential property. Finally, the claim was allowed by observing that substantive part of the conditions was complied with by the assessee. The assessee had invested the sale consideration in purchase of land and started construction. Investment of substantial amount in new asset was sufficient compliance to claim deduction u/s 54F as held by various High Courts. 6. Regarding allegation of usage of building for commercial purpose, the field enquiries revealed that the usage for non-residential purpose was only to the extent of 6.47%. Accordingly, Ld. AO was directed to reduce the deduction proportionately. 7. Regarding purchase of 2 prope....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he construction particularly considering the fact that the provisions of Sec.54F are beneficial provisions to promote investment in housing sector and encourage investments in acquisition of residential property. Once the assessee is found eligible to claim the same, the benefit should be granted to full extent as held in various judicial pronouncements. Therefore, the deduction could not be denied simply because there was delay on the part of contractor to complete the construction. The decision of Hon'ble High Court of Madras in CIT vs Sardarmal Kothari and Shanthilal Kothari (302 ITR 286) supports the case of the assessee. 10. The issue of depositing the unappropriated capital gains in capital gain account scheme before date of filing....