TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 1311
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en claimed correctly". Notice u/s 143(2) of the Act dated 18.09.2017 was issued. On request of assessee, the assessment proceedings was converted to manual/conventional mode with the approval of the competent authority. 2.1. Sh. Nitin Gupta, CA & AR attended proceedings, filed details/documents. 2.2. On completion of proceedings, Ld. AO vide order dated 19.12.2018 made addition of Rs. 5,60,68,722/- on account of Long Term Capital Gains. 3. Against order dated 19.12.2018 of Ld. AO, the assessee filed appeal before Ld. CIT(A) which was dismissed vide order dated 15.07.2025. 4. Being aggrieved, appellant-assessee preferred present appeal on following grounds of appeal:- 1. That CIT(A) erred in passing the order dated 15.07.2025 dismissing the appeal of the Appellant without considering facts, submissions and legal position in respect of each of the grounds in appeal before him and upholding the order of assessment passed by the Assessing Officer dated 19.12.2018 and therefore, same is not justified and legally sustainable. 2. That CIT(A) failed to appreciate that proceedings u/s 143(2) of the Act were not validly initiated in the case of the Appellant and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Delhi which constituted only one residential house owned by the Appellant on the date of purchase of new residential house and the AO had wrongly constituted the property as two residential houses and therefore, the Appellant was duly entitled for exemption u/s 54F of the Act pursuant to utilization of proceeds of shares in purchase of new residential house. 8. That CIT(A) also erred in upholding the computation of exemption allowable u/s 54F of the Act made by the AO by wrongly considering sale consideration of all the shares sold by the Appellant during the year without appreciating that Section 54F of the Act refers to 'any long term capital asset' and therefore, exemption was correctly claimed by the Appellant with reference to sale consideration of shares on which he had earned longterm capital gain. 9. That the Appellant had duly submitted documentary evidences for sale of shares and purchase of new residential house before the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) along with detailed legal submissions supported by case law and therefore, claim of the Appellant for exemption u/s 54F of the Act for amount of Rs. 5,43,92,935/- was duly allowable and same was w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the purpose of deduction u/s 54F Reference in this regard has also been made to provisions of section 70(3) of the Act. 5.1. At the outset it is submitted that facts of the case of brother of the Appellant Mr. Rajesh Bansal has also been same in regard to sale of shares and investment of sale proceeds for purchase of a residential flat with the same builder, namely, Antarctica Properties Company Limited. Assessing Officer had not accepted claim for exemption of capital gain u/s 54F of the Act. CIT(A) in appeal filed by Mr. Rajesh Bansal has accepted the claim and has directed the AO to allow exemption u/s 54F of the Act vide his order dated 12.02.2020 (refer pages 41-71 of Paper Book). Department has accepted the aforesaid order of CIT(A) and no appeal has been filed before this Hon'ble Tribunal. It is humbly submitted that claim of the Appellant deserves to be allowed on this basis. 5.2. Further, the Appellant submits as under in respect of grounds of appeal raised with reference to issues mentioned above: - 1. Ground Nos. 1 and 2 are of general nature. 2. Ground Nos. 3 to 5 and 9 have been raised with reference to issues mentioned at Sl. No. 1 and 3 ab....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....57/Del/2019 decided on 27.02.2026. * Smt. Chander Kanta Maheshwari v. ITO, ITA. No.448/Del/2018 decided on 19.01.2022. * Smt. Harminder Kaur v. ITO, ITA No. 2656/Del./2017 decided on 10.02.2021. * Shri Rohtash Singh v DCIT, ITA No.218/Del./2016 decided on 06.11.2020 * Smt. Vatsala Asthana in ITA No.5635/Del/2016 decided on 06.08.2019 * Vijay Choudhary v. ITO, ITA No. 6432/Del./2015 decided on 10.06.2019. * ITO v. Ms. Meena Ojha, ITA No. 3619/Del/2013 decided on 18.01.2019 January 18, 2019 * Dr. Kushagra Kataria v. Dy. CIT, ITA No. 1452/Del/2016 decided on 21.12.2018. * ITO v. Smt. Sapana Dimri, ITA No.4958/Del/2011 decided on 20.01.2012 (d) In this regard attention of this Hon'ble Bench is invited to provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 54F of the Act which specifically provides that amount of net sale consideration which is not appropriated towards purchase of new assets or construction of new asset before the date of furnishing return of income u/s 139 shall be deposited by him before furnishing such return. Since reference has been made to section 139, which will includes sub-section (4), an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g submitted as Annexures-6 and 7. 5.4. In respect of issue at Sl. No. 4 above the Appellant has raised ground no. 8 and in this regard the Appellant submits as under: - (a) Contention of the AO which has been upheld by the CIT(A) that all the shares sold by an assessee collectively constitute an asset for the purpose of deduction u/s 54F is not legally correct and this view is clearly against the language of section 54F of the Act. Sub-section (1) of section 54F provides that where, in the case of an assessee the capital gain arises from the transfer of any long-term capital asset, not being residential house and net sale consideration is utilised for purchase or construction of residential house, capital gain arising on such capital asset shall not be chargeable to tax u/s 45 of the Act. Accordingly, the Appellant has claimed exemption u/s 54F of the Act with reference to investment in residential house of sale consideration in respect of shares of certain companies on which he had earned long term capital gain. It is submitted that shares of each of the companies constitute a separate capital asset and has to be dealt with accordingly in terms of clear language of sub....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n were listed in one statement to claim exemption u/s 54F and exemption of Rs. 5,43,92,935/-was claimed on that basis. The AO has worked out exemption of Rs. 2,65,05,917/- aggregating sale consideration and net long-term capital gain aggregating all the transactions as per computation given in Annexure-8. It is submitted in this regard that AO has disregarded the scheme of Income Tax Act in regard to computation of capital gain with reference to sale of a capital asset and exemption available u/s 54F in respect of long-term capital gain. The Appellant with a view to explain the scheme of the Act takes the liberty to refer to the Hon'ble bench various provisions of the Income Tax Act referred in Annexure-9. 5.5. A copy each of decisions referred hereinabove are being given in case law compilation. 5.6. It is humbly prayed that in view of above legal and the factual position appeal of the Appellant may please be allowed and AO may be directed to allow deduction u/s 54F of the Act of Rs. 5,43,92,935/- as claimed by the Appellant. 6. Ld. Departmental Representative relied on the order of Ld. Assessing Officer. 7. From examination of record, in light of aforesaid rival c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r section 139(4) to claim deduction u/s 54F of the Act. 7.6. In case an assessee has already utilised sale consideration before furnishing return of income u/s 139(4) of the Act he is not required to deposit the amount in capital gain account. 8. In view of above, ground of appeal Nos.3 to 5 and 9 are accepted. 9. Ld. AO and CIT(A) failed to appreciate that assessee was the owner of only 1/3rd undivided shares in property at D-112/113, Preet Vihar, Delhi. So he could not be considered to be owner of two properties. The properties were constituting only single contiguous property and were being used by the Appellant and his two brothers, who have been jointly owning the property (1/3rd each) as single residential house and each of the brothers was occupying one of the floors of the property for residential purpose of their families. All the three brothers were also using common lifts and common staircase of property D-113 and address of all the three brothers on all the government documents like Aadhaar card, passport, bank etc. was also D- 113, Preet Vihar, Delhi-92. In income tax returns also Appellant has been showing same address. In support of this fact affidavit of th....