9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 257X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he new house purchased is in a foreign country - the Revenue has failed to draw any distinguishing features - the CIT(A) first reason is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The purchase amount is more than sale proceeds and assessee’s bank statement did not provide exact information - sec. 54 is a beneficial provision wherein such a condition is nowhere provided for - the assessee had utilized his consideration money only to purchase the new Singaporean house - the CIT(A)’s other reasons are not liable to be affirmed - The assessee is held entitled for claim of deduction u/s. 54 of the Act – Decided in favour of Assessee. - I.T.A. No. 863/Mds/2014 - - - Dated:- 26-6-2014 - A Mohan Alankamony And S S Godara, JJ. For the Appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l gains for purchase of new house. The same was summarily processed. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer framed regular assessment vide order dated 10.10.2011 accepting the aforesaid claim u/s. 54. However, the CIT/ DIT(International Taxation, Chennai) passed sec 263 order dated 22.07.2013 holding therein that the assessee s claim u/s. 54 could be allowed only in case of purchase of new house in India and not in a foreign country. So, he directed the Assessing officer to frame denovo assessment. In consequence thereof, the Assessing Officer disallowed the assessee s claim on the very ground that he had not purchased house in question in India and added capital gains of ₹ 42,19,184/- 6. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dia introduced various schemes to spur the ground in that sector. On of the measures is to give incentives by way of exemption to tax payers to invest in residential houses. Definitely the Government of India might not have given incentive to invest in housing in foreign countries. It is common knowledge and elementary thing to perceive the undercurrent in enacting exemption provision relating to housing. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the appellant is not entitled to exemption u/s. 54 of the Act as the appellant purchased a residential house in Singapore. The intention of the legislature is to encourage housing in India and not in foreign countries. Morover, the consideration for the investment in residential property was made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... So, the CIT(A) first reason is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 8. Now, we come to second reason adopted by the CIT(A) that assessee had paid purchase amount in Singaporean currency. Undisputedly, he has purchased his house in Singapore. So, he is supposed to pay the consideration money as per currency norms of said county. Thus, this reason is not concurred with. 9. Now, we come to third reason in the CIT(A) order that the purchase amount is more than sale proceeds and assessee s bank statement did not provide exact information. Admittedly, we are only concerned about reinvestment of capital gains and not any further sum. Coming to funds flow, we observe that if this reason is accepted, it would amount to imposition of a superfici ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
