9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 1656X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s also an undisputed fact that the capital gain earned on sale of flat was not deposited in the specified bank account till the time of purchase of new flat. On the issue of deposit of unutilized capital gains in specified bank account, we find that in the case of Humayun Suleman Merchant (2016 (9) TMI 70 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT) has held that the mandate of Sec.54F(4) of the Act is clear that the amount which has not been utilized either in purchase / construction of house before filing return of income has to be deposited in the account duly notified by Central Government for claiming exemption. We are therefore of the view that in the present case, AO was justified in denying the claim of deduction u/s 54 of the Act. It is a settled law ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ommissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is contrary to law and to the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in allowing the exemption u/s 54 of the Income Tax Act, though the assessee has failed to follow the procedure laid down u/s 54(2) of the Act of depositing the unutilized capital gains amount in the specified Capital Gains Account Scheme before the due date of filing return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act. 3. For this and such other reasons as may be urged at the time of hearing, the order of the Ld.CIT(A) may be vacated and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 4. Before us, at the outset, Ld.D.R. submitted t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the matter before Ld.CIT(A), who relying on the decision of Hon ble Gauhati High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Rajesh Kumar Jalan (2006) 286 ITR 274 and the decision of Hon ble Karanataka High Court in the case of Fatima Bhai Vs. ITO reported in 32 DTR 243 decided the issue in favour of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), Revenue is now in appeal before us. 6. Before us, at the time of hearing, the Ld.A.R. at the outset fairly submitted that though the issue has been decided by Hon ble CIT(A) by relying on the decision of other High Courts but the issue in the present case is covered against the assessee by the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of Humayun Suleman Merchant Vs. CCIT in ITA No.545 of 2012 order dt.18.0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
