9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (8) TMI 70X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anting deduction U/s. 54 of the Act. Penal action against such violation if any has to be initiated by the Bank, as per the Banking Regulations Act or as per the terms of the agreement between them and not by the Revenue. Case decided SHRI KAMAL WAHAL [ 2013 (1) TMI 401 - DELHI HIGH COURT] has also held that wherein the assessee purchases new house in the name of his wife and not in the name of any stranger who was unconnected with him, exemption cannot be denied if entire investment had come out of proceeds of old property . From the above it is clear that the assessee has not violated any of the provisions mentioned in section 54F of the Act in order to be denied for the benefit of deduction. Therefore,set aside the order of the Ld C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... movable property at ₹ 12,42,895/- and after claiming indexed cost of acquisition the assessee had computed the LTCG at ₹ 7,90,534/-. Further the assessee claimed deduction for the amount of ₹ 7,90,534/- u/s. 54F of the Act. However, the Ld.AO observed that the assessee had claimed deduction U/s. 54F of the Act with respect to the new semi-finished residential house purchased vide sale deed executed on 19/12/2012 in the name of the assessee s son for ₹ 26 lakhs. It was further observed that the assessee s son had purchased the new residential house from the loan obtained by him from HDFC Bank. The Ld. AO opined that since the sale proceeds were not deposited in the capital gain scheme account and also the new asset pu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... remaining amount of ₹ 13,49,000 ( Rupees Thirteen lakhs Forty Nine Thousand Only) will be paid after (45) days from the advance amount date i.e. at the time of Registration. The vendor agreed to execute the regd sale deed in favour of Purchaser or his/their nominees. (iv) In sale deed dated 19.12.2012, no reference Is made to the advance paid of ₹ 12,50,000/- on 6.5,2012; (v) As per sale deed the property was purchased by appellant s son for r an amount of ₹ 26,00,000/- by obtaining loan from HDFC Bank. As per the loan agreement with HDFC between appellant's son and HDFC, loan sanctioned was ₹ 22 lakhs. (vi) In the sale deed no reference is made to the agreement of sale dated 6.5.2012. (vii) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... chased in the name of his spouse. The Ld. AR further submitted that the loan was obtained from the HDFC bank subsequent to the payment made for purchase of the property and therefore the source for the purchase of the new residential property was from the sale proceeds of the asset sold by the assessee. It was further submitted that the new asset was purchased by the assessee within the due date of filing of the return and therefore there was no statutory obligation to deposit the sale proceeds in the capital gain scheme account. It was therefore requested that the benefit of deduction U/s. 54F of the Act may be granted to the assessee. The Ld. DR on the other hand relied on the orders of the Ld. Revenue Authorities and prayed for confirmin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isions mentioned in section 54F of the Act in order to be denied for the benefit of deduction. Therefore, I hereby set aside the order of the Ld CIT (A) on the issue and direct the Ld. AO to grant the benefit of deduction U/s.54F of the Act to the assessee. As regards the charging of interest U/s. 234A, B C of the Act, I hereby confirm the order of the Ld.CIT (A) because the levy of interest is consequential in nature and mandatory. 8. Before parting, it is worthwhile to mention that this order is pronounced after 90 days of hearing the appeal, which is though against the usual norms, I find it appropriate, taking into consideration of the extra-ordinary situation in the light of the lock-down due to Covid-19 pandemic. While doing so, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
