9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 297X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ikapool, Hyderabad, was returned back to the assessee i.e., an amount of ₹ 27 lakhs was returned and ₹ 50,000 was forfeited towards cancellation charges and the assessee ultimately constructed her house within the period of 3 years from the transfer of original asset and hence had complied with the provisions of section 54F of the Act - the amounts which were ultimately invested within the stipulated time, is to be exempted from tax although the assessee failed to technically deposit the same in the capital gain account - the intention of the Act as well as the intention of the assessee are to be considered in a right perspective – thus, the order of the CIT(A) is upheld – Decided against Revenue. - ITA No. 302/Hyd/2014 - - - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ason for disallowing of the claim u/s. 54F of the Act that the assessee has not deposited the amount of capital gain in the Capital Gain Deposit Scheme as required u/s. 54(2) of the Act, before starting of construction work of the building. 5. On appeal before the CIT(A), the CIT(A) confirmed the order of the AO by order dated 27.02.2012. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee preferred an appeal before the ITAT and the ITAT vide their order in ITA No. 454/Hyd/2012 dated 20.7.2012 partly allowed the appeal for statistical purposes. 6. With regard to the objection of the AO that the assessee has not constructed the new residential building within the stipulated time and that it is in a semi-finished condition and, therefore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e's contention regarding non-granting of exemption u/s. 54F of the IT Act is not acceptable. Therefore, the order u/s. 143(3) passed by the assessing officer on 29.12.2008 holds good. 9. Aggrieved by the consequential order dated 12.10.2012, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) at para 7 of his order held that the only issue is that whether the amount of ₹ 2.5 lakhs and ₹ 25 lakhs have been paid towards purchase of flat being flat No. 501, Anand Plaza situated at Lakdikapool, Hyderabad and whether the assessee is entitled for exemption u/s. 54F of the Act. The CIT(A) observed that the AO has not decided the issue by examining the evidence filed before him. The CIT(A) further pointed out that he has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rchased a flat within two years from the sale of plot. The default committed by the assessee was a technical default that the assessee did not deposit the amount meant for reinvestment in the capital gain account scheme before filing return under Section 139 of the Act. Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and the decisions relied by the learned Authorised Representative, we are of the considered opinion that the amount of Rs: 4,01,000 out of ₹ 5 lakhs which were ultimately invested within the stipulated time is to be exempt from tax although the assessee failed to technically deposit the same in the capital gain account. The intention of the Act as well as the intention of the assessee are to be con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee against the consequential order passed by the AO, consequent to ITAT order in ITA No. 454/Hyd/12. The CIT(A) observed that the amount initially advanced of ₹ 27,50,000 towards purchase of flat situated at Lakdikapool, Hyderabad, was returned back to the assessee i.e., an amount of ₹ 27 lakhs was returned and ₹ 50,000 was forfeited towards cancellation charges and the assessee ultimately constructed her house within the period of 3 years from the transfer of original asset and hence had complied with the provisions of section 54F of the Act. As held in the case of Jagan Nath Singh Lodha (supra), the amounts which were ultimately invested within the stipulated time, is to be exempted from tax although the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
