9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 353X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t scheme. The assessee entered into construction agreement and agreement for land purchase on 03.02.2011, which was not at all disputed by the Department, very much before provisions of section 139(1) of the Act. In the case of Jagtar Singh Chawla of Punjab and Haryana High Court [2013 (4) TMI 499 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] the assessee has paid substantial amount for purchase of residential property before the extended due date of filing of return and the assessee was eligible for exemption and not liable to pay any capital gain tax. Assessee complied the conditions and is eligible for exemption under section 54 of the Act - Decided in favour of assessee. - I.T.A.No.2930/Mds/2016, And I.T.A.No.3171/Mds/2016 - - - Dated:- 3-4-2017 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and after examining the details filed by the assessee, the Assessing Officer has completed the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act assessing total income of the assessee at ₹.1,97,74,602/- after making disallowance of exemption under section 54 of the Act at ₹.1,08,67,007/-. 3. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). After considering the submissions of the assessee, the ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee. 4. On being aggrieved, both the assessee as well as Revenue are in appeal before the Tribunal. With regard to the restriction of disallowance under section 54 of the Act, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has vehemently argued that once the ld. CIT(A) has accepted th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ers of authorities below. In the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has noticed that the assessee has sold a residential house property at Kanathur, Chennai along with his parents on 03.02.2012 for a total consideration of ₹.8,10,00,000I- and the assessee's share was ₹.2,70,00,000/-. The assessee has claimed the indexed cost of acquisition at ₹.6,11,270/- for which copy of the deed was fill before the Assessing Officer. The assessee has also claimed indexed cost of improvement at ₹.1,09,13,604/- for which the assessee filed copy of the Balance sheet of his Father for the F.Y 2008-09, wherein the investment in property which was sold, was shown as an asset at ₹.1,93,10,823/-. After claiming index cost o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tal gains exemption claimed by the assessee was brought to tax. 6.1 During the course of appellate proceedings, after examining the details as filed before the Assessing Officer, the ld. CIT(A) has observed that the assessee has utilised an amount of ₹.65,08,766/-(₹. 28,17,524 (advance given on 04.02.2011) + ₹.36,91,242/-) before the due date of filing of the return under section 139(1) of the Act on or before 31.07.2012. The remaining payments ₹.89,66,359/-(LTCG of ₹.1,54,75,125/(-) ₹.65,08,766/-(amount utilised before 31.07.2012) was made by the assessee after 31.07.2012. Since the assessee has not deposited the balance amount of ₹.89,66,359/-, in the specified capital gains account scheme, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... G Vysya Bank 10.07.2012 10,39,175.00 DD No. 794918; ING Vysya Bank 07.11.2012 10,39,175.00 DD No. 009754; HDFC 21.01.2013 10,41,225.00. DD No. 000143; HDFC 22.04.2013 10,39,246.00 DD No. 000396; HDFC 24.09.2013 5,19,587.00 DD No. 000878; HDFC 28.11.2013 5,19,587.00 DD No. 453885; HDFC Registration Charges 1,86,278.00 Total 1,08,67,007.0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) of the Act. The assessee has direct investment in house property and therefore not opted in capital gain account scheme. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has further substantiated arguments with judicial decision of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. R.L. Sood 245 ITR 727 (Del) were the date of agreement to purchase should be taken as the date of purchase. On applying the ratio to current circumstances, the assessee entered into construction agreement and agreement for land purchase on 03.02.2011, which was not at all disputed by the Department, very much before provisions of section 139(1) of the Act. In the case of Jagtar Singh Chawla of Punjab and Haryana High Court in ITA No.71 of 2012, dated 20.03.2013 the assessee has paid subs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
