9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 374X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the furniture and fixture if any was belonging to the partnership firm. The assessee has no right to claim the ownership of furniture and fixture of the partnership firm. Since agreement dated 12th May 2008 nowhere speaks about the transfer of furniture and fixture, therefore, in the said circumstances the claim of the assessee with regard to the furniture and fixture does not seem justifiable, therefore, CIT(A) has no doubt rightly confirmed the order passed by the Assessing Officer which does not require to be interfere with at this appellate stage. Hence, this issue is decided in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. Exemption u/s.54F - Held that:- The assessee has received consideration of ₹ 2,75,00,000/- on transfer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng these appeals have been arose by the single order vide which the parties are also the same and the matter of controversy can conveniently be adjudicated by a single order. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of his income on 12.08.2009 declaring total income to the tune of ₹ 6,03,245/- for the A.Y.2009-10. The return was processed u/s.143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( in short the Act ) accepting the returned of income. Thereafter, the case was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s.143(2) of the Act was sent on 24.08.2010 which was duly served upon the assessee. Subsequently, further notice u/s.142(1) of the Act alongwith detailed questionnaire was sent to the assessee on 09.02.2012, 18.07.2011 a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... u/s.54F with respect to one residential house which has already been purchased by the assessee and there is nothing left on which the assessee can claim the exemption u/s.54F. Hence, the assessee will not be able to claim the deduction u/s.54F. Hence, the assessee will not be able to claim the deduction u/s.54F on the amount deposited in the Capital Gain A/c. Scheme. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 1,31,91,550/- without appreciating the fact that the assessee has not / could not subsequently utilized this amount for the purpose of the new asset on which deduction u/s.54F has been claimed. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nity bond executed on 12th May, 2008. The tenancy right was transferred to the landlord M/s.Dherani Finance and Investment (P) Ltd. vide agreement dated 12th May, 2008. It has specifically mentioned in the agreement that the above consideration was paid for surrendering of tenancy right and no other assets. In view of this, the assessee was asked to justify the claim of cost of furniture at ₹ 7,23,902/- against receipt of tenancy rights. The explanation of the assessee is that tenancy property was given with all the structure as it was and hence only cost was adjusted against furniture. The furniture is taken separately, it would not have given any value and had to be scraped. There was no possibility of having any short term capital ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th the deletion of addition of ₹ 1,31,91,550/-. The revenue has contended that the assessee can claim exemption in respect of one residential house which has already been purchased by the assessee and thereafter nothing could be claimed u/s.54F of the Act. Therefore, in the said circumstances the deletion of addition of ₹ 1,31,91,550/- is wrong against law and facts and is liable to be set aside. However, on the other hand learned representative of the assessee has refuted the said contentions. Before going further it is necessary to advert the finding of CIT(A) on record. CIT(A) has decided this issue in para no. 4.3 which is hereby reproduced below:- 4.3 I have carefully perused the assessment order and appellant s submiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the purchase or construction of the new asset within the period specified in sub-section (1) been the cost of the new asset, shall be charged under section 45 as income of the previous year in which the period of three years from the date of the transfer of the original asset expires; and (ii) the assessee shall be entitled to withdraw the unutilized amount in accordance with the scheme aforesaid. Hence, the action of the A.O. in restricting the exemption u/s.54F without considering the fact, that the balance amount remained with the assessee after the purchase of house property was deposited in Capital Gains Deposit Saving Account, is not in accordance with the provisions of Income Tax Act. Hence, this ground of appeal is allow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
