TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (10) TMI 1260
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and No. 284/08-09 respectively. Both the orders are dated 16.6.2009 and both for the assessment year 2006-07. 2. Shri K. Ravi represented on behalf of the assessees and Shri Shaji P. Jacob represented on behalf of the Revenue. Detailed arguments have been placed by both sides. In both the cases, in Form No. 36, in column No. 9 being date of communication of the order appealed against, the date has been mentioned as 24.10.08. However, the appeals had been filed on 17th August, 2009. The orders of the ld. CIT(Appeals) in the case of both the assessees were passed on 16.06.2009. It was submitted by the learned A.R. that this was a mistake in col.No.9 in Form No. 36. The date of communication of the orders of the CIT(Appeals) has been brought ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Assessing Officer under the provisions of section 143(3) of the Act. The Assessing Officer in the course of assessment proceedings, denied the assessee's claim of deduction under section 54F on the basis that the assessee had invested in Capital Gains Account Scheme, the deposit period of which was only for three months and it was not known whether the assessee had constructed any house within three months so as to claim exemption. The A.O. invoked section 50C of the Act enhancing the sale consideration by Rs. 8,80,000/- of which 1/3 amount was to be brought to tax by the Assessing Officer as share of income denying exemption under section 54F of the Act. 7. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee went in appeal befor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ins Account Scheme as provided in law. 9. The learned counsel for the assessee further submitted that it is not the case of the Revenue that identical amount from the sale consideration is only to be invested as deposit in the Capital Gains Account Scheme and finally find its way for the construction or purchase of a property. All that section 54F of the Act contemplates is that a new house property should be purchased within one year before or two years after the date of transfer or should be constructed within three years after the date of transfer. He submitted that the Assessing Officer was under the impression that the Capital Gains Account Scheme should allow the assessee to withdraw the amount for the purpose of construction which w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....icates that the amount of the consideration which is not appropriated by the assessee towards the purchase of new asset made within one year before the date on which the transfer of original asset took place, or which is not utilized by him for purchase of new asset before the date furnishing the return of income under section 139, shall only be deposited in such an account before the date which in this case is 31st March, 2008. The assessee had purchased the new asset on 19th October, 2007 which is well within the time limit under the Act. Thus, the assessee has fulfilled the condition prescribed in section 54F for claiming the deduction. For this proposition, he has relied on the decision of Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in the case of C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ning himself to the issue of claim of deduction under section 54F of the Act. 11. The learned D.R. supported the orders of the authorities below. He submitted that the facts clearly indicated that the assessee had not filed a return in order to comply with the provisions of section 139(4) and more so, the ld. CIT(Appeals) identified that the amount proposed to be paid and claimed deduction under section 54F was not the same as considered by the Assessing Officer for holding the same in the Capital Gains Deposit Scheme and that too only for three months. Therefore, analyzing these facts in a manner which the learned counsel for the assessee proposed and submitted as of now may be considered in the light of the paper-book and noted as availa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ount as from some other sources which the Assessing Officer has not brought on record. Therefore, having scrupulously followed only the bank statements, the ld. CIT(Appeals) misdirected himself to hold that the purchase of new residential building by the assessee was not that 1/3 sale consideration of Rs. 45,00,000/- received on 2nd February, 2006 from Capital Gains Deposit Scheme. Both the authorities, therefore, contradicted the facts which we incline to hold as considered adversely against the assessee but in a different manner. 13. We have carefully perused various evidences placed on record along with the citations relied on by the learned counsel for the assessee. We are inclined to hold that the assessee did not have any other incom....