9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 677X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I 822 - ITAT AHMEDABAD] has held that deduction u/s 54F is allowable on identical facts. Thus, the deduction u/s 54F of the Act claimed by assessee is allowable and therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed passed by ld CIT(A). That being so, we decline to interfere with the order of Id. CIT(A) in deleting the aforesaid additions. His order on this addition is, therefore, upheld and the grounds of appeal of the Revenue are dismissed. - ITA No.447/SRT/2019 - - - Dated:- 12-4-2022 - Shri Pawan Singh, JM And Dr. A.L.Saini, AM For the Assessee : Shri Mehul Shah, C.A For the Respondent : Shri Abhishek Gautam, Sr. DR ORDER PER DR. A. L. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: Captioned appeal filed by the Revenue pertaining to the assessment year 2009-10, is directed against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-1,Surat [ CIT(A) for short], dated 12.07.2019, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer ( assessing officer for short) u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ), vide order dated 28.03.2015. 2. Grounds of appeal r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o ₹ 22,55,830/- in the year under consideration on the LTCG of ₹ 23,23,238/- computed from sales consideration of ₹ 25,72,800/-. The assessee has also claimed deduction u/s 54F amounting to ₹ 17,75,393/- and investment of ₹ 1,80,000/- u/s 54EC in the subsequent AY 2010-11 for the same property. Therefore, a show cause notice was issued to the assessee asking as to why the claim of deduction u/s 54F for ₹ 22,55,830/- should not be disallowed. 7. In response, the assessee submitted written submissions before the assessing officer, stating that land was converted into stock -in-trade and constructed residential project on the said land, and made investment in the construction of residential house property in both the years and construction was also completed within the statutory time limit, hence the assessee has satisfied the conditions of section 54F of the Act. However, the assessing officer has rejected the contention of the assessee and held that assessee has failed to substantiate his claim with supporting evidence to prove that both the properties are same on which the construction of residential house was carried out. Also assessee has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ning is that the assessee has claimed deduction u/s 54F on same residential property in AY 2009-10 2010-11. However, it is not mentioned whether deduction was claimed on same amount twice, or the total deduction claimed in 2 years is more than amount invested in residential unit. From the above, it is clear that the only dispute or issue of contention is whether the assessee can claim deduction u/s 54F in more than one year when he invests sale considerations received from sale of different capital assets in construction of one residential unit over the years when all other conditions are satisfied? We note that deduction u/s 54F of the Act, is allowable when the assessee invests sale proceeds of original asset in residential unit during the specified time period, provided the assessee doesn t own more than one residence at the time. In the assessee`s case assessing officer accepted that all the conditions are met. The assessee has explained this in detail before assessing officer vide letter dated 18.02.2015 and the assessing officer has not rebutted it. We note that ld. Counsel relied on the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of ITAT Ahmedabad in the case of DCIT vs Pankaj ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ical issue of allowability of Section 54F of the Act on sale of multiple assets came up for consideration before the co-ordinate bench in the past. Useful reference can be made to Anagha Ajit Panekar (supra); Krishnadevi Kejriwal (supra) and ACIT vs. Mahindrakumar Jain (2017) 84 taxmann.com 141 (Del) as quoted in the appellate order of CIT(A). In the light of the aforesaid decisions, the order of the CIT(A), in our view, cannot be faulted. 11. However, to address the concern of Revenue for strict construction of beneficial provisions in the light of Dilip Kumar Co. (supra), we notice that the deduction under section 54F of the Act essentially depends upon the extent of utilization of the sale proceeds in the new asset. The benefits of Section 54F of the Act also stands denied where the assessee owns more than one residential house other than new asset on the date of transfer of the original asset. The object of Section 54F is to encourage an assessee to convert any of his long term assets into a residential house subject to the condition that assessee does not own more than one residential house other than the new residential house on the date of transfer of long term asset ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
