9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 764X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ansfer of capital asset - HELD THAT:- The issue in the present ground is with respect to claim of deduction of the stamp duty and other charges stated to have been paid by the assessee while computing capital gains. Before us, Ld.A.R. has not controverted the findings of Ld.CIT(A) and further he has not controverted the contention of Ld. D.R. with regard to the payment of stamp duty and other charges being not emanating from the sale deed which has been executed for the sale of property. In such a situation, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of Ld.CIT(A). Thus, the ground No.3 of the assessee is dismissed. Deduction u/s 54F and 54B - time limit for making investment - HELD THAT:- It is a fact that the assessee had invested ₹ 55 lacs in the construction of residential house for which assessee had claimed deduction u/s 54F of the Act and ₹ 35 lakhs was invested towards purchase of agricultural land for which he had claimed deduction u/s 54B. The aforesaid investments for which the deduction has been claimed have been made after the due date for filing of return of income u/s 139(1) but before the filing of return u/s 139(4). Therefore, in a situ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ultural land during the previous year and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2 has erred in confirming the same. 3. The learned Income Tax Officer, Ward 2, Ahmednagar has erred in disallowing deduction of ₹ 9,02,000/- towards expenses incurred by assessee for transfer of capital asset and Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2 has erred in confirming the same. 4. The learned Income Tax Officer, Ward 2, Ahmednagar has erred in calculating amount of exemption under section 54F by considering amount for construction of residential house as ₹ 53,91,397/- instead of correct amount of ₹ 57,50,000/- and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Pune has erred in confirming the same. 5. The learned Income Tax Officer, Ward 2, Ahmednagar has wrongly disallowed deduction of ₹ 35,00,000/- under section 54B forwards purchase agricultural land by the assessee and Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2 has erred in confirming the same. 3. Ground No.1 is general in nature and requires no adjudication. Hence, ground No.1 of the assessee is dismissed. 4. Ground No.2 is with r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fallacy in the findings of Ld.CIT(A) has been pointed out by the assessee. Further, no evidence of filing of suit by the assessee has also been placed on record by the assessee. Considering the totality of the aforesaid facts, we find no reason to interfere with the order of Ld.CIT(A). Thus, the ground No.2 of the assessee is dismissed. 7. Ground No.3 is with respect to disallowance of ₹ 9,02,000/- towards expenses incurred by the assessee for transfer of capital asset. 7.1. Assessee had claimed deduction of ₹ 9,02,000/- towards stamp duty and other charges stated to have been paid by him. The claim of the assessee was not found acceptable to the AO as he noted that the receipts were in the name of the purchaser. Before Ld.CIT(A), it was submitted that the aforesaid expenses have been paid by the assessee and not by the purchaser and therefore, it should be allowed as deduction while computing the capital gain. The submission of the assessee was not found acceptable to the Ld.CIT(A) as he has noted that the stamp duty and other registration charges were always attributable to the purchaser and not to the seller. He acco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AO was of the view that the claim of deduction u/s 54B of the Act cannot be granted to assessee as the amount subject to capital gains was not used for acquiring the new asset (i.e., agricultural land) before the due date of furnishing the return of income i.e., before 31.07.2013. He accordingly denied the claim of deduction. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before Ld.CIT(A), who upheld the order of AO by observing as under : 5.2. I have perused the facts as mentioned in the assessment order as well as arguments taken on behalf of the appellant. As apparent from the fact, the sale deed has been duly registered on 27.08.2012 in favour of six persons. Not only that in the sale deed itself share of six buyers have been clearly mentioned, meaning thereby that share in land of the six buyers are determinate. Registration charges and stamp duty have been duly paid. Just because some cheques given by the buyers was not honoured cannot invalidate the transaction. The appellant is free to initiate separate legal proceeding for dishonour of the cheques and that has nothing to do with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unt was not deposited under the Capital Gain Account Scheme yet he was eligible for deduction u/s 54F of the IT Act. I therefore uphold the order of the Assessing Officer in restricting the deduction u/s. 54F to ₹ 53,91,397/-. 8. In ground No.5, the appellant has objected to the disallowance of ₹ 35,00,000/- u/s 54B of the I T Act. The Assessing Officer in the assessment order has mentioned that the amount of capital gain was not utilized for acquisition of new asset before the due date of furnishing of return of income neither the. same was deposited under Capital Gain Account Scheme. The appellant on the other hand, has taken the same argument by stating that due date of filing of return includes sub-section (4) of see. 139 of the I T Act. 8.1 I have perused the facts in this regard. The due date of furnishing of return in the case of the appellant was 31.07.2013, however, the investment in agricultural land of ₹ 35,00,000/- was made on 26.11.2013. While dealing with ground No. 4, I have already held that the unutilized portion of the capital gain has to be deposited in an account maintained under Capital Gain Account Scheme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
