9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 899X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terfere with the same. Accordingly, sole ground of the revenue being devoid of merits is dismissed. - Decided in favour of assessee. Declining the claim u/ s 54F - Held that:- We are inclined to hold that the issue raised by the assessee is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the judgment of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Dr. P.K. Vasnathi Rangarajan vs CIT (2012 (7) TMI 563 - MADRAS HIGH COURT) and the assessee cannot be denied exemption u/s 54F of the Act merely because he was the holder of 50% of the share jointly with Smt. Saroj Aggarwal of the property situated at Siddarth Extension Residential Scheme and the AO was not justified in denying claim of the assessee u/s 54 of the Act and the first appellate authority was incorrect in upholding the action of the AO on this issue. Finally in view of our foregoing discussion, we dismiss the action of the AO as well as impugned order pertaining to the claim of deduction u/s 54F of the Act and the AO is directed to allow the same to the assessee. - Decided in favour of assessee. Addition for 'income from house property' - Held that:- From careful reading of the impugned assessment order and order of the CIT(A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... osited by him before the furnishing of such return and the assessee has not complied with the provisions of section 54B of the Act for claiming deduction thereunder as in his case, the due date for filing return was 31.7.2006 and not 31.10.06 as claimed by the assessee. The AO disallowed the claim of the assessee and added the amount of ₹ 32 lakh to the taxable income of the assessee. 4. The aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) which was allowed by holding that in view of the order u/s 119(2)(b) of the Act dated 24.7.06 issued by the CBDT and the relevant evidence filed by the assesse in support of depositing of impugned amount in his bank account of 28.10.06, the assessee rightly claimed deduction u/s 54B of the Act and relief was granted to the assessee. The CIT(A) explicitly held that as per order of the CBDT dated 24.7.06 (supra), the due date for furnishing of return of income for AY 2006-07 was extended to 31.10.06 in all the cases of non-corporate tax payers including partners of firms and charitable trusts and institutions. Hence, last date for filing of return applicable to the assessee was 31.10.06. Now, the aggrieved revenue is before this Tribun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is thus allowed. 7. In view of above, when the assessee is showing income from business and profession in the return of income either negative or positive, then obviously, the assessee falls within the ambit of non-corporate tax payers which includes partners of the firm and hence, date of filing of return applicable for the assessee would be 31.10.06. We may further point out that when admittedly and undisputedly, the assessee deposited impugned amount of ₹ 32 lakh in the capital gains account scheme on 28.10.06 before the due date of filing of return i.e. 31.10.06, then assessee is eligible for deduction u/s 54B of the Act in this regard. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the view taken by the CIT(A) is sustainable and as per provisions of the Act and we are unable to see any infirmity, perversity or any other valid reason to interfere with the same. Accordingly, sole ground of the revenue being devoid of merits is dismissed. Assessee s appeal in ITA No.3474/D/13 for AY 2006-07 8. First of all, ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that the assessee does not want to press ground no. 1 and hence, the same is dismissed as not pressed. The remaining grounds of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or 28, Faridabad and SFS Flat No. 36B, First Floor, Pocket C, Siddarth Extension Residential Scheme, New Delhi and the assessee was also seeking claim of exemption u/s 54F of the Act by purchasing a third property no. 614, sector 21-C, Faridabad which is clearly hit by the proviso (a) (i) to section 54F(1) of the Act. Ld. DR submitted that the AO rightly denied exemption u/s 54 of the Act to the assessee which was rightly upheld and confirmed by the CIT(A), Faridabad. Thus, these grounds of the assessee being devoid of merits may kindly be dismissed. Ld. DR submitted that the benefit of the ratio of decision of Hon ble Madras High Court is not available for the assessee in the present case. 11. Replying to the above, ld. Counsel of the assessee also placed a rejoinder and submitted that the impugned alleged second property SFS Flat No. 36F, situated at Siddarth Extension Residential Scheme, New Delhi was not exclusively owned by the assessee and the assessee was owning only 50% of share in that property, therefore, in view of judgment of Hon ble High Court of Madras in the case of Dr. P.K. Vasnathi Rangarajan vs CIT (supra) is applicable to the case of the assessee. Ld. Counsel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was held to be entitled to exemption u/s 54F of the Act. On a specific query from the bench, ld. DR could not show us any other judgement or order which could lead us to take a different view on this issue. Hence, we are inclined to hold that the issue raised by the assessee is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the judgment of Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of Dr. P.K. Vasnathi Rangarajan vs CIT (supra) and the assessee cannot be denied exemption u/s 54F of the Act merely because he was the holder of 50% of the share jointly with Smt. Saroj Aggarwal of the property situated at Siddarth Extension Residential Scheme and the AO was not justified in denying claim of the assessee u/s 54 of the Act and the first appellate authority was incorrect in upholding the action of the AO on this issue. Finally in view of our foregoing discussion, we dismiss the action of the AO as well as impugned order pertaining to the claim of deduction u/s 54F of the Act and the AO is directed to allow the same to the assessee. Accordingly, ground no. 2 of the assessee is allowed. Ground No.3 13. Apropos ground no. 3, ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that the assessee has not rec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
