9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 855X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... conditions set out in Section 54F of the Act, before allowing the claim - Assessing Officer has to look into the veracity of the declaration made by the assessee throwing his personal property into the common hotchpotch of the HUF of which assessee was the kartha - Assessing Officer has to verify whether the returns of the HUF were filed before or after the filing of the individual return – Matter remitted back to the Ao for fresh adjudication – Decided in favour of Revenue. - ITA No.1330/Mds./2012 - - - Dated:- 20-6-2013 - Shri Abraham P. George And Shri V. Durga Rao,JJ. For the Appellant : Shri T. N. Betgiri, JCIT D.R. For the Respondent : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ORDER Per Abraham P. George, Accountant Member:- In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... exemption under section 54F of the Act, on the long term capital gains of Rs. 44,53,360/- arising out of the sale of the property at Perungudi village. 3. Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings noted that assessee was in possession of more than one house in addition to the new asset acquired. As per Assessing Officer, there was a similar claim made by the assessee in Assessment Year 2006-07 also, for a sale and investment, where also it was not accepted. Assessing Officer also noted that assessment order for A.Y. 2006-07 wherein similar claim was not allowed, was upheld by the CIT(A). He thus, denied the claim of exemption of Rs. 44,53,360/- under section 54F of the Act. 4. Assessee moved in appeal before the CIT( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refore, it was eligible for claiming exemption under section 54F of the Act. If the same analogy was followed in assessee's case, he was eligible for claiming exemption under section 54F of the Act, as well. 6. Now before us, Ld. D.R strongly assailing the order of the CIT(A) submitted that in assessee's appeal for assessment year 2006-07, though CIT(A) had partly held in favour of the assessee, Revenue had moved in further appeal before the Tribunal. As per Ld. D.R, such appeal of the Revenue was dismissed only for the reason of low tax effect. Hence according to him, order of the CIT(A) for Assessment Year 2006-07 could not be considered sacrosanct. Claim of assessee that properties sold belonged to the HUF could not be accepted, since ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der, since Revenue's appeal for the said year stood dismissed by the Tribunal. Just because assessee made a mistake in reporting the capital gains in his individual return would not, in his opinion, change the fact that ownership over the said property was vested in the HUF. Assessee will not become owner of a property, of which he was not actually the owner, simply due to a reason that a tax return was filed. Therefore, according to him, CIT(A) was justified in giving relief to the assessee. 8. We have perused the orders of the lower authorities and heard the rival contentions. In the first place, we find that the main plank of contention taken by the assessee is with reference to the decision of the CIT(A) on a similar claim made in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which the transfer took place purchased, or has within a period of three years after that date constructed, a residential house (hereafter in this section referred to as the new asset), the capital gain shall be dealt with in accordance with the following provisions of this section, that is to say,-- (a) if the cost of the new asset is not less than the net consideration in respect of the original asset, the whole of such capital gain shall not be charged under section 45 ; (b) if the cost of the new asset is less than the net consideration in respect of the original asset, so much of the capital gain as bears to the whole of the capital gain the same proportion as the cost of the new asset bears to the net consideration, shall not be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... requires fresh look by the Assessing Officer. Assessing Officer has to verify whether the claim of assessee that the property belonged to HUF and whether the new investments made satisfied the conditions set out in Section 54F of the Act, before allowing the claim. Assessing Officer has to look into the veracity of the declaration made by the assessee throwing his personal property into the common hotchpotch of the HUF of which assessee was the kartha. Assessing Officer has to verify whether the returns of the HUF were filed before or after the filing of the individual return. After considering all these aspects, Assessing Officer has to come to a fresh conclusion regarding the claim of deduction/s 54F of the Act. We therefore, set aside th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
