9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 658X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in specified capital gains account maintained with bank before the time stipulated u/s 139(1) of the Act. The assessee has stated to have invested in the new residential property on 23 September, 2005 while the due date of filing return as extended by CBDT was 31.08.2005 but the said investment was made before the expiry of date of filing of return of income as stipulated u/s 139(4) of the Act and the assessee had diled return of income on 17-10-2005 wherein the investment was made prior to filing of return of income with the Revenue, and hence the assessee will be entitled for the deduction. CIT(A), on appeal allowed the deduction to the tune of ₹ 25 lacs while it is the claim of the assessee that the assessee has further spent an amount of ₹ 5,51,846/- towards stamp duty, registration charges and other miscellaneous expenses in the new house property. In our view, this claim of the assessee for being eligible for higher deduction u/s 54/54F of the Act on the grounds that the said sum was spent before the filing of return of income on 17.10.2005 within time stipulated u/s 139(4) of the Act required verification by the AO and hence we are inclined to set aside and r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er consideration, the assessee has earned long term capital gain on sale of two flats and jewellery. The capital gain worked out by the assessee are as under:- ( A) Capital gain on sale of flats Sale consideration Rs. 42,00,000 Less: Indexed cost acquisition ₹ 28,72,586 ₹ 13,27,414 ( B) Capital gain on sale of Jewellery Sale consideration ₹ 7,88,000 Less: Indexed cost of acquisition ₹ 4,61,761 ₹ 3,21,183 Gross Long Term capital gain ₹ 16,48,597 Less: Deduction u/s 54F on purchase of Flat ₹ 16,48,597/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 39(1) of the Act but CBDT extended time u/s. 139(1) of the Act upto 31 August, 2005 vide Circular No.220/1/2005 dated 27.07.2005. The AO observed that the assessee has neither utilized the capital gain for the purpose of purchase of residential house on or before the date for filing of return nor has deposited the same with specified capital gain account with bank, hence deduction u/s 54/54F of the Act was not allowed and capital gain was computed by the AO, vide assessment order dated 28.12.2007 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act, as under:- Sale consideration of flats (as discussed above) Flat No. 101 ₹ 20,24,463 Flat No. 102 Rs. 26,00,000 ₹ 53,40,611 Less: Indexed cost of acquisition (as per assessee s own working) ₹ 28,72,586 Rs.24,68,025 Less: Exempt u/s 54/54F Rs. Nil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . It was submitted that the authorities below have erred in not allowing investment of ₹ 5,51,846/- while computing deduction u/s 54/54F of the Act. It was submitted that the assessee had also earned long term capital gain on sale of jewellery though the said capital gain was reinvested in purchase of flat and the same is not considered for the purposes of deduction u/s 54F of the Act. The assessee has made investment in the new property on 23-09-2005 i.e. before the filing of return of income on 17th October, 2005. It was submitted that the DVO valuation is higher than the stamp duty valuation. Stamp duty valuation is to be adopted as per provisions of Section 50C(3) of the Act, as against which the actual consideration received was ₹ 42 lacs. 8. The ld. D.R. relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A). 9. We have considered the rival contentions and also perused the material available on record. We have observed that the assessee has sold two flats for a total consideration of ₹ 42 lacs. Stamp duty authorities have valued the two flats at ₹ 50,40,611/- while the DVO has determined the value of the two flats at ₹ 59,64,000/-. The DVO valuation is high ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
