9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 407X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore 31.03.2011. The assessee demolished the existing residential property which was jointly owned by him and constructed four new flats but has claimed only as per his own share excluding the wife s share as well. All the criteria of Section 54 was fulfilled by the assessee. In fact assessee s wife got the relief for her share as claimed by her from the Revenue in respect of Capital Gains Scheme. Thus, the Assessing Officer should have not rejected assessee s claim on the different footing which was rightly claimed by the assessee. Therefore, Assessing Officer as well as CIT(A) was not right in making the addition on this account. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned CIT(A) and learned Assessing Officer are against the principles of natural justice. 6. That the appellant craves the leave to add, amend, modify, delete any of the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing and all the above grounds are without prejudice to each other." 3. During the year under reference, the assessee had sold a property at Qutab Enclave Complex, Phase-II, Gurgaon and claimed exemption under Section 54 under the head Long Term Capital Gains. The Assessing Officer disallowed ₹ 69,42,053/- in respect of the claim of exemption u/s 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 made by the Assessee. 4. Being aggrieved by the assessment order the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Act as the consideration received on transfer of long term capital asset, being residential house property, is unutilized/ invested in reconstruction of the residential house property owned by the assessee. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee had duly complied with the provisions of Section 54 of the Act and the construction was a new one and not a renovation of existing building, the old house stood demolished completely. The Ld. AR further submitted that law does not provide that the assessee is not entitled to demolish an old structure and construct a new building thereupon. The above view also finds supports from the following judgments: - CIT Vs Ashok Kumar Ralhan 2014 146 taxmann.com 416 (Delhi) - CITVs P V Narsimhan 181 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eparate deposit of ₹ 50 Lakhs in Capital Gain Account Scheme (though bank statement is jointly held by her with the assessee). As per the provision of Income Tax Act, 1961, where amount of capital gain is not appropriated or utilized by the assessee for purchase or construction of residential house before the due date of furnishing return of income, it shall be deposited by him on or before the due date of filing return of income, in the Deposit Account in any Branch of a Public Sector Bank or IDBI Bank in accordance with Capital Gain Accounts Scheme, 1988. The amount deposited shall deemed to be amount utilized for purchase or construction of a house under Section 54. In the present case, assessee sold the property on 19/11/2010 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The assessee demolished the existing residential property which was jointly owned by him and constructed four new flats but has claimed only as per his own share excluding the wife's share as well. Therefore, the Assessee has rightly claimed exemption u/s 54EC as NHAI bonds of 75,00,000/- were taken by the assessee after the property was sold. All the criteria of Section 54 was fulfilled by the assessee. Thus, Ground No. 2 of the assessee's appeal is allowed. As regards to Ground No. 3 and 4, in fact assessee's wife got the relief for her share as claimed by her from the Revenue in respect of Capital Gains Scheme. Thus, the Assessing Officer should have not rejected assessee's claim on the different footing which was rightly claimed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
