9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 952X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is the owner of only one residential house, purchased on 17.12.2007, well within the time of two years after the date on which the transfer took place. We find that Ld. CIT(A) has rightly observed that no case can be made out for denial of exemption under section 54F as the assessee has purchased the residential house in accordance with the provisions. Certainly the assessee was not entitled to the exemption under section 54F of the balance amount of ₹ 1,00,29,500/- for purchase of land, and the said claim was withdrawn during the assessment proceedings. It should also be stated that withdrawal of exemption under section 54F is certainly outside the scope of section 154, and there is no mistake apparent from the record which could ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tal gain of ₹ 2,01,24,019/- on sale of land. The said capital gain was claimed exempt under section 54F, for investment in two new residential properties. During the scrutiny assessment proceedings, it was noticed that the appellant was already an owner of a plot of land at Faridabad, and as per the provisions of section 54F, the exemption was not permissible where the assessee owns more than one. residential house, other than the new asset, on the date of transfer of the original asset. The asseessee filed a revised computation of income, restricting the claim of exemption under section 54F to ₹ 95,50,000/-, and offered the balance long term capital gains of ₹ 1,05,74,019/- for taxation. The Assessing Officer, while not a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 377; 95,50,000/- in a residential house at K-100, Kalkaji, New Delhi on 17.12.2007 and an amount of ₹ 1,00,29,500/- in land at 365, Sector-21C, Faridabad on 07.07.2008. We find that the assessee originally claimed exemption under section 54F for the entire amount of capital gains, but during the assessment proceedings, he revised his claim of exemption under section 54F to the amount invested in residential house, i.e. to ₹ 95,50,000/-. This revised claim was accepted by the Assessing Officer in the original order under section 143(3), albeit with initiation of penalty under section 271(1)(c). However, in the order under section 154, the claim of exemption of ₹ 95,50,000/- was withdrawn, supposedly for contravention of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pparent from the record which could have been rectified by the Assessing Officer. After carefully examining the facts of this case, the disallowance of the claim of exemption under section 54F in the order under section 154 was rightly deleted by the Ld. CIT(A). In the background of the aforesaid discussions, we affirm the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and decide the issue against the Revenue. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed. 8. The Cross objection is only supportive of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) s order. Since we have already upheld the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) in the Revenue s Appeal above, this Cross Objection by the Assessee has become infructuous. Accordingly, the sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
