9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 1337X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Munirka on 09.04.2010 which is beyond one year as prescribed u/s. 54F for getting deduction u/s. 54F. Therefore, the lower authorities are justified in rejecting the claim of assessee. - Decided against assessee. - ITA No. 6640/Del/2015 - - - Dated:- 22-1-2019 - Shri H.S. Sidhu, Judicial Member And Shri L.P. Sahu, Accountant Member For the Appellant : Sh. Arvind Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent : Sh. Surender Pal, Sr. DR ORDER PER L.P. SAHU, A.M.: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT(A)-20, New Delhi dated 08.10.2015 for the assessment year 2012-13 on the following grounds : 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -20, New Delh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Officer noticed that the assessee has shown his income from business or profession, house property, capital gains and other sources. The Assessing Officer further noticed that the assessee had sold plot C-1417, Palam Vihar, Gurgaon on 24.05.2011, which was a long term capital asset and he was the owner of 50% of that property. The said property was sold and he received his share for sale consideration of ₹ 52.05 lakhs and claimed expenditure ofRs.8,20,180/-. Resultantly, the long term capital gain was calculated at ₹ 43,24,820/-. Further, the assessee also purchased a house at DLF and claimed exemption u/s. 54F of his own share of 50% to the extent of ₹ 50,53,375/-. Further, the Assessing Officer noticed that on the dat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... prior to sale of original asset, i.e. 06.04.2011. Therefore, the assessee is justified to claim deduction u/s. 54F of the Act. In support of his arguments, he relied on the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Sh. Sanjay Lal etc. etc. vs. CIT (Civil appeal No. 5899 5900 of 2014). 4. On the other hand, the ld. DR relied on the order of the lower authorities and submitted that language of the Act is clear for getting deduction u/s. 54 F of the Act that the assessee should invest his money for acquiring new asset (residential property) within a year from the sale of the original asset. The date of sale of property would be deemed to be when the sale deed was executed by the assessee, which in the instant case is 30.05.2011 an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Hindu undivided family], the capital gain arises from the transfer of any long-term capital asset, not being a residential house (hereafter in this section referred to as the original asset), and the assessee has, within a period of one year before or [two years] after the date on which the transfer took place purchased, or has within a period of three years after that date constructed, a residential house (hereafter in this section referred to as the new asset), the capital gain shall be dealt with in accordance with the following provisions of this section, that is to say,- In the instant case the date of sale of the asset is 30/05/2011. Therefore, in order to get exemption under section 54F of the Act, the appellant should have inv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e construed as advance sale consideration when the buyer was nowhere in sight on 06/04/2011. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, appellant cannot claim exemption under section 54F as the conditions laid down in the Act is not fulfilled by the assessee. From the above finding of the ld. CIT(A) is clear that the assessee had bought new property beyond one year prior to the sale of original asset against which the assessee wanted to take deduction u/s. 54F. The language of the Act is very clear that the assessee should purchase/invest in new house within one year prior to the date of sale of original asset. The assessee has sold the property on 30.05.2011 on the date the sale deed was executed and purchased prop ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
