TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (7) TMI 294
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, read with section 260A of the Act for condonation of 294 days delay in filing the appeal. 2. The appellant has claimed that the following substantial questions of law would arise for our determination : "I. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer and by wrongly reversing the orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in not allowing legal deduction as claimed by the appellant under section 54F of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by completely ignoring the CBDT circular which is binding on the Assessing Officer ? II. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iteria while deciding the issue in dispute ?" 3. The facts which are necessary for the disposal of the controversy raised are that the assessee filed the return on October 11, 1998, declaring the income of Rs. 1,38,771 plus agricultural income of Rs. 1,64,086 which was processed under section 143(1)(a) of the Act. Thereafter, notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued on September 27, 1999, which was served on the assessee-appellant on September 28, 1999. The Assessing Officer held discussion with the assessee-appellant to produce books of account. The assessee has shown long-term capital gain of Rs. 4,64,400 on the sale/purchase of 2,900 shares. He also claimed exemption under section 54F of the Act in lieu of the purchase of res....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....because it was held that the construction of those two rooms do not constitute to be a dwelling unit and those rooms were constructed only in the month of February, 2001. Accordingly, the claim made under section 54F of the Act was rejected and penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated for making a wrong claim. 4. On appeal preferred by the assessee the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) reversed the view taken by the Assessing Officer after concluding that the appellant could have utilised the amount of capital gain of Rs. 5,11,560 declared on April 22, 1997, within a period of three years, i.e., on or before April 22, 2000. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) found that the period did not expire at th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s admitted by the assessee himself before the Assessing Officer that the original construction was demolished and even the foundation of that construction was removed. The assessee failed to adduce any evidence to justify his claim showing the construction of house. The Tribunal has also found that the assessee had not constructed any house on the relevant date, i.e., April 22, 2000. When the case came up for scrutiny in the financial year 2000-01 the construction of the aforementioned two rooms covering an area of less than 150 sq. ft. was found which constituted a basis to make a claim of deduction under section 54F of the Act. The onus to prove to succeed in availing of the exemption was obviously on the assessee which was never discharg....