9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 400X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proportionate deduction u/s. 54F to the extent of investment made in construction of new residential house within the period allowed u/s. 54F of the Act, i.e., 09.10.2014 though construction was not fully completed. The assessee shall provide necessary evidence in support of the cost of construction incurred upto the date of time allowed u/s. 54F of the Act so as to claim the deduction. This issue is therefore remitted to the Assessing Officer for the limited purpose of computation of deduction u/s. 54F of the Act, after examining the cost of construction incurred in construction of new residential house upto 09.10.2014. We may clarify that the investment made by the assessee before one year of sale of original capital asset i.e., bef ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st in purchase of above properties was ₹ 3,20,07,373, however the correct amount is ₹ 32,07,373. 4. The ld. AR submitted that there is no mistake apparent on the record in the order of Tribunal which warrants rectification, except the mistake in the amount of total cost in purchase of properties in para 2 of the order as stated by the ld. DR. 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. The Tribunal in the order dated 3.2.2021 observed that the assessee is entitled to deduction u/s. 54F of the Act following the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court in the CIT v. Smt. B.S. Shantakumari, 60 taxmann.com 74 (Kar) and Smt. Babita Kemparaje Urs v. CIT, 167 ITD 125 (Bang). 6. In the present ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n construction of the new house, though it was not fully completed. In our opinion, even though the house was not complete in all respects, the assessee is entitled for proportionate deduction u/s. 54F of the Act to the extent of investment. 8. The Hon ble Karnataka High Court in CIT v. Sambandam Udaykumar reported in 251 CTR 371 took the view that, under provisions of section 54F of the Act, the condition preceded is that, capital gains realised from sale of capital asset should have been parted by assessee and invested or constructed a residential house, as the case may be. Hon ble court also observed that, the essence of the purpose of section 54F, is whether, the assessee who received the capital gain has invested in a house. Onc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent is made within the period stipulated therein, then Section 54F(4) is not at all attracted and therefore the contention that the assessee has not deposited the amount in the Bank account as stipulated and therefore, he is not entitled to the benefit even though he has invested the money in construction is also not correct. 5. For the aforesaid reasons both the substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the, assessee and against the Revenue. Therefore, we do not see merit in any of the appeals. Accordingly, all the four appeals are dismissed. 10. From the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v. K. Ramachandra (supra) , we observe from the answer to question No.2 in the same case, in para 4.1, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
