2026 (3) TMI 635

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r.w.s 144B of the of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') relating to the Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, filed his return of income for the Assessment Year 2015-16 on 24.08.2015 declaring total income of Rs. 47,66,097/-. The case was selected for scrutiny assessment and the claim of deduction u/s. 54F of the Act was accepted. The Assessing Officer found that assessee had disclosed sale of immovable property for consideration of Rs. 85,04,201/- and claimed wrong deduction u/s. 54F of the Act to the tune of Rs. 79,07,696/-. Hence, the assessment was reopened by issuing a notice u/s. 148 of the Act, which was served upon the assessee on 27.07.2022 and re....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 17.08.2016 as per the requirement of the assessee. 5.4. In view of the facts discussed above, the submission of the assessee as discussed above cannot be accepted. I therefore have no excuse to take a divergent view from the findings of the AO and therefore upheld the addition made by the AO. It can be seen that as the assessee had decided to purchase the immoveable property and paid the full consideration of Rs. 1,43,38,429/- during the period February 2014 to May 2014 i,e before the sale of immovable property on 19.08.2014 the deduction claimed u/s. 54F of the Act by the assessee cannot be accepted and the addition made by the AO is hereby upheld. Hence the addition made by the AO of Rs. 79,07,696/- is hereby confirmed. Accordin....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... limit stipulated u/s. 54F of the Act and produced all relevant documentary evidences including contractor's confirmation. It was further submitted that the Builders confirmed full consideration was received between February 2014 to May 2014, therefore, the lower authorities are not correct in denying benefit u/s. 54F of the Act. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee relied on the following judicial preedents: 1. Kothari Sanjy Manilal Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Incometax [2024] 169 taxmann.com 618 (Ahmedabad-Trib.) 2. Mustasir I Tehsildar Vs. Income-tax Officer 21(2)(3) [2017] 88 taxmann.com 275 (Mumbai-Trib. 6. The Ld. Sr. DR appearing for the Revenue, supported the orders passed by the Lower Authorities and requested to uph....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... old property, by observation as follows: "...22. It is axiomatic that Section 54(1) of the said Act does not contemplate that the same money received from the sale of a residential house should be used in the acquisition of new residential house. Had it been the intention of the Legislature that the very same money that had been received as consideration for transfer of a residential house should be used for acquisition of the new asset, Section 54(1) would not have allowed adjustment and/or exemption in respect of property purchased one year prior to the transfer, which gave rise to the capital gain or may be in the alternative have expressly made the exemption in case of prior purchase, subject to purchase from any advance that ....