9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 1060X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cribed u/s 54 of the Act. Since the amount invested in the new flat prior to the due date for furnishing return of income was more than the amount of capital gain, the requirements of depositing any money under capital gains account scheme does not arise in the instant case. Further, the Hon’ble High Court has held in the case of K.C.Gopalan [1999 (9) TMI 955 - KERALA HIGH COURT ]that there is no requirement that the sale proceeds realised on sale of old residential house alone should be utilised. Thus we are of the opinion that the assessee is entitled for deduction of full amount of capital gains u/s 54 of the Act, as he has complied with the conditions prescribed in that section. Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by Ld CIT(A) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 22.10.2014 ₹ 7,28,525/- Thus the aggregate payments made by the assessee towards the new flat were ₹ 104.70 lakhs. Since it was more than the amount of Capital gain, the assessee claimed that entire amount of capital gain of ₹ 78.36 lakhs was deductible u/s 54 of the Act. The assessee treated the acquisition of new flat as a case of Construction . As per the provisions of sec.54, the new flat is required to be constructed within 3 years from the date of transfer of old flat. Since the old flat was transferred on 05-12-2012, the assessee submitted that the time limit was available upto December, 2015 and the new flat was acquired before that date. 3. The assessing officer, however, took t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A) took the acquisition of new flat as a case of Purchase . Accordingly, by placing reliance on the decision rendered by Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Smt. Beena K Jain (217 ITR 363), the Ld CIT(A) confirmed the order of the AO. Aggrieved, the assessee has filed this appeal before us. 5. We heard the parties on this issue and perused the record. We have earlier noticed that the assessee has booked a flat, which was under construction, and made payments over the year. The final payments were made subsequent to the date of sale of old flat. The Ld A.R submitted that the final payment was made on 22-10-2014 and possession of new flat was obtained on 11-12-2014. 6. The Ld A.R submitted that the tax authorities have tak ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted that the provisions of sec.54 only stipulate that the construction should be completed within 3 years from the date of transfer. Accordingly he submitted that the construction may have commenced prior to the date of old asset, but the same should be completed within three years from the date of sale. In support of this proposition, the Ld A.R placed reliance on the decision rendered by Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. J.R.Subramanya Bhat (1987)(165 ITR 571), which was followed in the case of Asst. CIT Vs. Subhash Sevaram Bhavnani (2012)(23 taxmann.com 94)(Ahd. Trib.). The Ld A.R submitted that the assessee has completed the construction of new flat within three years from the date of transfer of old asset and accordin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rdingly, for the purpose of sec. 54 of the Act, we have to see whether the assessee has completed the construction within three years from the date of transfer of old asset. In the instant case, there is no dispute that the assessee took possession of the new flat within three years from the date of sale of old residential flat. Accordingly, we are of the view that the assessee has complied with the time limit prescribed u/s 54 of the Act. Since the amount invested in the new flat prior to the due date for furnishing return of income was more than the amount of capital gain, the requirements of depositing any money under capital gains account scheme does not arise in the instant case. Further, the Hon ble High Court has held in the case of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
