9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 76X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee has utilised only ₹ 10 lakhs for the construction of his new residential house within the due date of filing of the return of income i.e. on 31/7/2009 and had failed to remit the balance amount in the capital gain account scheme in a National Bank as provided under the Act - HELD THAT:- As decided in JUSTICE T.S. ARUNACHALAM [ 2018 (1) TMI 1572 - ITAT CHENNAI] that if the sale proceeds are deposited in Nationalised Bank it would suffice to claim the benefit of deduction U/s. 54F of the Act. Now, Since the assessee has claimed before me that the entire amount was deposited in Nationalised Bank and thereafter fully utilised the same for the purpose of acquiring the New asset within the period specified under the Act, in the i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the disallowance of ₹ 20 lakhs out of ₹ 30 lakhs claimed as deduction U/s. 54 of the IT Act. 5. a) The Ld. First appellate Authority failed to appreciate the fact that the AO considered the bank withdrawals upto 30/07/2009 only. Whereas the due date for the assessment year under consideration is 30/07/2010. (b) The Learned First Appellate Authority failed to appreciate the fact that the partial disallowance b the AO of deduction U/s. 54 is on wrong appreciation of facts. 6. The appellant prays leave to add or amend or alter any of the grounds at the time of hearing of appeal. 3. At the outset, the Ld. AR submitted before me that there is a delay of 136 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. In this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n filed by the assessee's Counsel, I find that the delay of 136 days in filing of the assessee's appeal before the Tribunal has occurred due to the lockdown caused by the Pandemic which is beyond the control of the assessee. Therefore, in the interest of Justice I hereby condone the delay of 136 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the matter on merits. 5. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual engaged in business filed his return of income on 20/08/2011 declaring total income of ₹ 41,370/-. Initially the return was processed U/s. 143(1) of the Act and thereafter the case was taken up for scrutiny and the assessment was completed vide order dated 28/10/2017 u/s. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the building constructed during the FYs 1991-92 and 1992-93 admeasuring ₹ 4,050/- sq ft. is valued at ₹ 400/- per sft as claimed by the assessee in his original return of income filed, so as to meet the ends of justice. The details working of the indexed cost of construction and the capital gains are worked out as under: Sale consideration 76,95,000 Less Indexed cost of acquisition of land 170.8 sq yds as on 1/4/1981 @ ₹ 5,39,822 500 sa yd, 170.83 X 500 = 85,415 X 632/100 Cost of construction of Bldg in 1991-92 @ ₹ 400/- p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er of the Ld. Revenue Authorities. 9. I have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the materials on record. Since the assessee is unable to produce any evidence with respect to his cost of land as on 1/4/1981 and cost of construction, I do not have any other option but to confirm the order of the Ld. Revenue Authorities who had relied on the SRO valuation and fairly estimated the cost of construction. Therefore, the grounds raised by the assessee on these regards are devoid of merit. 10. However, with respect to the claim of deduction U/s. 54F of the Act for ₹ 30 lakhs the Chennai Bench of the Tribunal in ITA No. 2455/Chny/2017 dated 30/01/2018 in the case of ACIT vs. Justice T.S. Arunachalam it was held that if the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is no such Maxim known to the law. In the given case before us also, it is not disputed that the assessee had not fulfilled the conditions prescribed under section 54 of the Act barring the deposit of the sale proceeds in the capital gain scheme account . Moreover, the facts reveal that the assessee had deposited the entire sale proceeds in his savings bank account maintained with nationalized bank out of which he has constructed his house. The only small lacuna assessee had made is that the assessee though had placed the entire sale proceeds in the nationalized bank he has not transferred the same in the Capital gain scheme account . Considering these facts of the case and the decisions of the Tribunal and the Hon'ble Apex Court cit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
