9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 257X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cer as well as the CIT(A) denying him claim of deduction u/s. 54 of the Act resulting in addition of capital gains of Rs. 42,19,184/- 3. In the course of hearing, we find that assessee's authorized representative has filed an adjournment letter dated 16th/17th June, 2014 pleading that he is expected to be out of station. However, nobody has come present to pursue the same. Therefore, we reject this petition and proceed to decide the case on merits in view of the case law CIT vs.Chenniappa Mudaliar (1969) 74 ITR (SC). A few basic facts of the case may be noticed. 4. The assessee; an 'individual' was owner of a residential house at Velachery in Chennai. In financial year 2008-2009 relevant to the impugned assessment year, he sold this house ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll the conditions to claim exemption u/s. 54 of the Act and hence the denial is unjustified. The following case laws were relied on. a) Mrs. Prema P. Shah vs. ITO (2006) 282 ITR (AT) 0211 (ITAT Mumbai) b) ITO vs. Dr. Girish M. Shah ITA No. 3582/Mum/2009 dated 17.02.2010. c) CIT vs. Vegetable Products (1973) 88 ITR 192(SC) d) DIT International Taxation vs Mrs. Jennifer Bhide (2012) 349 ITR 80. e) Vinay Mishra vs ACIT (2013) 80 Taxmann.com 341(Bangalore Trib). There are case laws in favour of the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs. 55 lakhs towards purchase of new asset. In the circumstances, the arguments of the appellant are rejected as devoid of merit and the order of the assessing officer is confirmed.'' Therefore, the assessee is in appeal. 7. We have heard the Revenue and perused the case file. The CIT(A) has disallowed the assessee's claim of deduction u/s. 54 for the reason that he had purchased his new house in Singapore; paid his consideration in foreign currency, the said amount turned out to be more than sale consideration realized from sale of Chennai house and his accounts statement did not provide exact information about flow of money. So far as, the first reason is concerned, we find that in a recent decision of Vinay Mishra Vs. ACIT (2012) 20 I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
