9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 1420X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate on which it had entered into an agreement to purchase the property. - decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No.674/PUN/2016 - - - Dated:- 23-1-2018 - MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM For the Appellant : Shri Sharad Shah For the Respondent : Smt. Nirupama Kotru ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM : 1. This appeal filed by the assessee is emanating out of the order of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT), Pune - 4, dt.04.02.2016 for the assessment year 2012-13 passed u/s 263 of the Act. 2. The relevant facts as culled out from the material on record are as under :- 2.1 Assessee is an HUF stated to be having income from other sources and capital gains. Assessee filed its return of inco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act and directed the AO to complete the assessment as per the directions contained in his order. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.PCIT, assessee is now in appeal before us and has raised the following grounds : 1. The order u/s 263(1) be declared as null and void as the relevant order of AO is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue and direction given by Ld.Pr.CIT be quashed. 2. The Prl.CIT has erred in assuming power u/s 263 to review the assessment order which has been passed after due verification of the fact and the law. 3. The Prl.CIT erred in concluding that the deduction u/s 54 is not available in relation to the amount paid / spent before the sale of original asset. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f ITO Vs. Narshivha Amrutrao Dhere and others in ITA Nos.1944 and 1945/PUN/2013 order dt.18.03.2015 submitted that there was no error in assessee s claiming deduction u/s 54F of the Act and that the assessee has rightly claimed the deduction and was also rightly allowed by AO. He further submitted that the issue was examined by the AO and when an issue has been examined by AO then merely because of difference in opinion, invocation of revisionary powers u/s 263 of the Act is not permissible. He therefore submitted that the order of Ld.PCIT passed u/s 263 of the Act be set aside. Ld.D.R. on the other hand, supported the order of AO and Ld.PCIT. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The issue in the pre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a K. Jain (supra), the date to be considered is the date on which the assessee had occupied the said property and not the date on which it had entered into an agreement to purchase the property. In the facts of the present case, the assessee had entered into an agreement on 19.11.2004. However, the occupancy certificate was issued by PMC only on 18.03.2008 and even the first MSEB bill was dated 14.08.2007. Consequently, the assessee had received, the possession of the property in assessment year 2008-09 i.e. within the year of sale of the asset and the assessee fulfilled the conditions laid down under section 54F of the Act vis- -vis investment in the new assets and was entitled to the claim of deduction in this regard. 6. We find that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
