9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 1067X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld that proceeding initiated under section 147 is invalid, this issue has become merely of academic interest. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA.No.1154/Hyd/2015, ITA.No.1155/Hyd/2015, ITA.No.1156/Hyd/2015 - - - Dated:- 19-2-2016 - SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S.S. VISWANETRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER For The Assessee : Mr. Laxminivas Sharma For The Revenue : Mr. M. Sitaram ORDER PER S.S. VISWANETRA RAVI, J.M. The above appeals are filed by the assessees against the separate orders of the Ld. CIT(A)-4, Hyderabad dated 03.07.2015. The assessee s are family members and co-owners of properties. Since common issues are involved in these appeals, the appeals are heard together and are being disposed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2,21,32,520. The assessee's share of investment is ₹ 36,88,753. The assessee claimed capital gains exemption of ₹ 34,03,603 under section 54 in the AY 2004-05 stating that the sale proceeds were invested in acquiring new house. During the relevant year, the new house property on which exemption u/s. 54 was claimed was sold for ₹ 1,95,00,000 and the assessee's share of sale receipt is Rs, 32,50,000. A.O. observed that since the assessee has claimed capital gain exemption of ₹ 34,03,603, the same was to be reduced from cost of acquisition as per the provisions of sec. 54 (1) (ii) of the IT Act, 1961 and worked out the short term capital gain on sale of house as under : Sale consideration ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... passed the impugned order treating the income chargeable to tax as per the provisions of section 54F(3), whereas, assessee claimed exemption under section 54 of the I.T. Act, 1961. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in second appeal before us. 2.3. Since, the facts and circumstances in case of other assessees are also similar, they are not reproduced again for sake of brevity. 3. The Ld. A.R. while reiterating the submissions made before the Ld. CIT(A), contended that assessees disposed of the property and purchased a second property within limitation period of two years and also relied on the order on identical issue passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of another co-owner Mr. Nilesh Dha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee in purchasing the properties at Road No.7 and 12, Banjarahills. While considering the same set of facts on merits, the Tribunal held that the investment in the second property is within the period of two years from the date of sale of the original asset. Therefore, the assessee therein who is a co-owner of the assessee herein was entitled to claim exemption under section 54 of the Act. For the sake of better understanding, the relevant portion at para-11 is reproduced as under : 11. So far as merits of the issue is concerned, Ld. AR submitted that after sale of original asset on 28.05.2003 in which assessee's share of capital gain was ₹ 31,41,007, assessee along with others purchased a residential house at Road N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e merely of academic interest. 6. Since the facts and circumstances of the case are similar and property involved therein are one and the same, respectfully following the decision of the Coordinate Bench of B Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Mr. Nilesh Dharod, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-6(3), Hyderabad (cited supra), the grounds raised on the issue by the assessees are allowed. 8. In two of the co-sharers above, one of the contention was that proceedings u/s 147 were initiated second time on same set of facts and reopening was bad in law. This issue was also considered and allowed in favour of assessee in the above referred case of Mr. Nilesh Tharod and following the same, we have to hold that proceedings initiated under sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
