9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 1420X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee filed its return of income for A.Y. 2012-13 on 20.12.2012 declaring total income of Rs. 2,20,702/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and thereafter assessment was framed u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dt.10.03.2015 and the total income was determined at Rs. 2,20,700/- being the same as return of income filed by the assessee. Thereafter on perusal of the assessment records, Ld.PCIT noticed that assessee had sold a flat on 09.05.2011 for Rs. 1,40,00,000/- and had claimed exemption u/s 54F of the Act for investment in construction. He was of the view that the claim of deduction u/s 54F was not in order because the date of investment of Rs. 76,20,583/- towards new residential property was on 18.11.2009 which was not one year prior t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l asset. 4. The Prl.CIT erred in conducting that some of the money is invested in new house after the due date of filing the return of income and therefore, the money should have been parked in Capital Gain Account, whereas all the payments are made before due date of filing the Return of Income." 3. Before us, at the outset, Ld.A.R. submitted that though assessee has raised several grounds but the sole controversy is with respect to invoking the revisionary powers by Ld.PCIT u/s 263 of the Act. 4. Before us, Ld.A.R. reiterated the submissions made before Ld.PCIT and pointed to the chart of events placed in the Appeal Memo. From the aforesaid Chart, he submitted that the old property was sold on 09.05.2011 and the agreement for purchase ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ith respect to invocation of revisionary powers u/s 263 of the Act by Ld.PCIT. Ld.PCIT was of the view that assessee is not eligible for claim of deduction u/s 54F of the Act because according to him exemption u/s 54F is available for capital gains on transfer of long term capital asset only if the assessee has within a period of one year before or two years after the date on which the transfer took place or within a period of three years after constructed a residential house. In the case of assessee since the purchase of new property was on 18.11.2009 i.e., beyond one year prior to the date of sale, the assessee was not eligible for benefit u/s 54F of the Act. We find that on identical issue the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the present case is covered by the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ITO Vs. Narshivha Amrutrao (supra). Before us, the Revenue has not placed any contrary binding decision nor has brought any material on record to demonstrate that the view taken by the A.O. was contrary to law or was an impermissible view or was upon application of wrong legal principles and therefore required initiating the exercise of revisionary powers under Sec.263. In view of the aforesaid facts, we are of the view that in the present case the Ld.PCIT was not justified in resorting to the revisionary powers under Sec.263 of the Act. We, therefore, set aside the order of the Ld.PCIT cancelling the order dt.10.03.2015 passed under Sec.143(3) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
