9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 149X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... finding, we draw support from the decision of the co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of M.A. Patel (2012 (9) TMI 360 - ITAT, BANGALORE) relied on by the learned Authorised Representative wherein on similar facts the Tribunal held that the assessee would be entitled to exemption under section 54 of the Act. Following the aforesaid decision of the co-ordinate benches of this Tribunal (supra), we direct the Assessing Officer to allow the assessee exemption claimed under section 54 of the Act. - Decided in favour of assessee. - I.T.A. No.164/Bang/2012 - - - Dated:- 5-10-2012 - SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN AND SHRI JASON P. BOAZ, JJ. For the Appellant : Smt. Sheetal Borkar For the Respondent : Smt. Susan Thomas Jose ORDER ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he learned CIT (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that the appellant having satisfied the conditions required under section 54F of the Act and he ought to have allowed the claim of exemption as made by the appellant in toto. 3. The learned CIT (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that the appellant having bought a residential house with all civic amenities which is further supported by documentary evidence like sale deed, tax paid receipt etc and ought to have allowed the benefit as claimed by the appellant in toto. 4. The learned CIT (Appeals) further ought to have appreciated that there is no transfer of property and the appellant continues to be the owner even till today and hence the intention of the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Stage, Bangalore for ₹ 76,58,360 on 16.10.2007. In the return of income the assessee claimed exemption under section 54 in respect of this sum of ₹ 76,58,260 representing the investment in purchase of the said property. However, the assessee noting the mistake made in claiming exemption under section 54, revised the claim for exemption under section 54F of the Act. The Assessing Officer rejected the assessee s claim for exemption under section 54F of the Act, computed the Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG) on the said transaction at ₹ 76,03,305 and brought the same to tax in the assessee s hands. In appeal, the learned CIT (Appeals) dismissed the assessee s claim. 5.3 The learned counsel for the assessee reiterated the clai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... age measuring 50 x 50 in all 277.77 sq. yards, together with two squares RCC roofed house, cement floor, jungle wood doors and windows. In Form 1A issued by the Govt. of Karnataka, Dept. of Registration and Stamps dt.16.10.2007 (on page 37 of assessee's paper book filed on 4.5.2012), the schedules of the property at Schedule C - describe the property measuring 200 sq. ft. of RCC Roofed House, Cement Flooring and with all civic amenities. On page 33 of the assessee's paper book, we find that the assessee has filed a copy of the receipt for payment of property tax in respect of the said property on 3.7.2007 for 2006-07 and 2007-08. A copy of the English translation of the said property tax receipt (duly attested) was filed by the le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and Form 1A issued by the Dept. of Registrar and Stamps, Govt. of Karnataka on 16.10.2007 which confirm that on the date of purchase of the property by the assessee there was a 200 sq. ft. of RCC roofed house, cement flooring and with all civic amenities. b) The Assessing Officer was also of the view that the tax paid by the assessee was property tax on a vacant site. However, we find that the learned counsel for the assessee as brought out in para 5.4 of this order, has placed on record a translated copy of the property tax receipt attested by a Notary showing that the said payment of ₹ 6900 on 3.7.2007 was for tax paid for building and not for a vacant site. c) The learned CIT (Appeals) was of the vie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A issued by the Dept. of Registration and Stamps, Govt. of Karnataka clearly indicate that there existed on the said property a 200 sq. ft. RCC house, with cement floor and civic amenities. In this matter, with due respect, we are of the view that the case of M.B. Ramesh(supra) cited by the learned Departmental Representative is distinguishable on facts and would not apply to the assessee's case. 5.6 As already discussed in paras 5.2 to 5.5 above, we have already had occasion to examine the evidence filed by the assessee in the present case and this in our considered opinion sufficiently justifies the existence of a house of 200 sq. ft. RCC with cement floor and civic amenities on the said property when it was purchased by the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
