9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 819X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... well-established principle of law that whereas eligibility criteria laid down in an exemption notification are required to be construed strictly, once it is found that the applicant satisfies the same, the exemption notification should be construed liberally - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - ITA No.2753/Mds/2016 - - - Dated:- 26-5-2017 - SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI D.S.SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Appellant : Mr. A.V.Sreekanth, JCIT For The Respondent : Mr.N.Rajagopalan, CA ORDER PER D.S.SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the Order dated 22.07.2016 of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Chennai, in ITA No.199/CIT(A)-6 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sioner of Income Tax (Appeals) be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 2.0 All the grounds of the appeal are related to the disallowance of claim made u/s.54F of the Income Tax Act (in short the Act ) amounting to ₹ 69,59,260/-. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (in short AO ) found that the assessee sold shares in Indigo Tx Pvt. Ltd., for a consideration of ₹ 71,68,750/- by way of transfer and the Net sale consideration was claimed to be 69,15,260/-and claimed the entire sale consideration as deduction u/s.54F of Income tax act, towards the investment in house property. The AO disallowed the claim made by the assessee since the assessee has entered into contract for construction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be taken. In doing so, I am guided by the following judicial pronouncements: i. Hon ble Delhi High Court s decision in CIT vs Bharti Mishra repoted in [2014] taxmann.com 50 (Delhi). ii. Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT B. Sri SardarmalKothari reported in (2008) TMI 30/87. iii. Hon ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs H.K. Kapoor [1998] 234 ITR 75. iv. Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs T.R. Subramanya Bhatt reported in [1987] 165 ITR 571. v. Ld. Chennai Tribunal in the case of Seetha Subramanian vs ACIT reported in 59 ITR 94. vi. Ld. Chennai Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs R. Vasu in ITA No.1656/Mds/2008 dated 09.07.2010. 6.2 The head note of the Hon ble Delhi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee is able to successfully demonstrate the investment. 4.0 Appearing for the Revenue, the Ld.DR argued that the assessee has registered the undivided share of land of two residential apartments bearing No.404 in 4th floor and 504 in 5th floor in block C-3 admeasuring 1231.30 sq.ft. each. As per the sale deed on 30.09.2010 the assessee had paid a consideration of ₹ 29,02,000/- in aggregate for both the flats towards the undivided share of land (UDS) and the shares were transferred on 23.11.2011 which was more than a year prior to the date of transfer. As per the provisions of Sec.54F of the Act, the assessee required to make investment one year before the date of transfer of capital asset or complete construction within the three ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are satisfied. (i) In case of purchase of asset (a) It should be purchased within one year before the sale of long term capital asset. or (b) It should have been acquired Within two years from the date of the sale of the long term capital asset or (ii) In case of construction, after that date constructed a residential house with in three years for the date of transfer of capital asset.. 5.1 For ready reference, we re-produce hereunder Sec.54F of the Act which reads as under: [ Capital gain on transfer of certain capital assets not to be charged in case of investment in residential house. 83 54F. (1) 84[Subject to the provisions of sub-section (4), where, in the case of an assessee being an individual or a Hindu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any residential house, other than the new asset, within a period of three years after the date of transfer of the original asset; and ( b) the income from such residential house, other than the one residential house owned on the date of transfer of the original asset, is chargeable under the head Income f 5.2 This view is upheld by the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT-XV v. Bharti Mishra in ITA No.567/2013 and the relevant part of the decision is extracted as under: 12. Section 54F(1) if read carefully states that the assessee being an individual or Hindu Undivided Family, who had earned capital gains from transfer of any longterm capital not being a residential house could claim benefit under the said Secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
