2019 (2) TMI 520 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance of exemption claimed u/s 54F - CIT(A) has adopted the market value as per the DVO s report - Held that - CIT(A) has adopted the market value as per the DVO s report. The revenue has not brought any other material except the valuation made by the stamp valuation authority. It is also not stated as to how the DVO s report is not correct. No infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) to adopt the market value as per the DVO s report. Further, Ld. CIT(A) has allowed deduction u/s 54F of the Act. As the assessee in accordance with the provisions of section 54F of the Act amount was deposited in the capital gain account and so utilized there from within the time frame as prescribed under the law, the grounds raised by the revenue are devoid of merit. Hence, we reject the same. - Decided against revenue

Issues:
1. Disallowance of exemption claimed under section 54F
2. Failure to provide details of utilization of amount withdrawn from Capital Gain Account Scheme, 1988
3. Justification of deleting the addition by the CIT(A)
4. Claim of deduction under chapter VI-A

Analysis:
1. The appeal by the revenue challenged the order of the CIT(A) regarding the disallowance of exemption claimed under section 54F. The Assessing Officer (A.O.) had made an addition of ?1,31,00,044/- due to the disallowance. The CIT(A) partially allowed the appeal, adopting the market value of the property at ?2,96,48,000/- as per the Departmental Valuation Officer's report. The CIT(A) also allowed the exemption under section 54F and the claim of deduction under chapter VI-A. The revenue contended that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the additions, while the assessee argued that all conditions for the deduction under section 54F were met. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the market value was correctly adopted, and the assessee fulfilled the conditions for the deduction, thereby rejecting the revenue's grounds.

2. The A.O. had observed that the assessee failed to provide details of the utilization of the amount withdrawn from the Capital Gain Account Scheme, 1988. However, the CIT(A) found in favor of the assessee, allowing the exemption under section 54F and the claim of deduction under chapter VI-A. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing that the assessee complied with the provisions of section 54F by depositing the amount in the capital gain account and utilizing it within the prescribed time frame. Thus, the grounds raised by the revenue were deemed meritless, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

3. The ITAT thoroughly analyzed the submissions, records, and orders of the authorities below. It noted that the CIT(A) correctly adopted the market value based on the DVO's report. The revenue failed to provide any material contradicting the DVO's valuation, relying solely on the stamp valuation authority's assessment. The ITAT found no fault in the CIT(A)'s decision to adopt the DVO's report for market value and to allow the deduction under section 54F. Consequently, the appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed.

4. The only effective ground of appeal was the claim of deduction under section 54F, amounting to ?1,31,00,044/-. The Revenue argued against the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the deduction, supported by the A.O.'s findings. However, the ITAT concurred with the CIT(A)'s reasoning, emphasizing the fulfillment of conditions for the deduction under section 54F by the assessee. As a result, the appeal challenging the deduction claim was rejected, and the decision in favor of the assessee was upheld.

← Previous Next →