9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 155X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the decisions of various High Courts including Smt. V.R. Karpagam ( 2014 (8) TMI 899 - MADRAS HIGH COURT ). A similar issue has been taken in the case of K.G. Rukminiamma [ 2010 (8) TMI 482 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] Therefore, we cannot find fault with the claim of the assessee on this ground alone. Construction of house property was not completed within three years from the date of transfer of original asset - We find that the assessee has admitted the fact that the builder did not complete construction of house property on or before three years from the date of transfer of original asset. Therefore, we cannot find fault with the reasons given by the Assessing Officer to reject deduction u/s. 54F on this ground. Assessee has made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cted against the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Chennai, dated 14.02.2023 and pertains to assessment year 2012-13. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case. 2. For that the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, reopened without there being any tangible/valid reason that income had escaped assessment. 3. For that the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the denial of exemption claimed u/s 54F of the Act for Rs. 64,92,456/- and thereby bringing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tered into a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) dated 01.04.2011, for development of 72092 sq.ft. of land at Zameen Pallavaram Village. As per JDA, the appellant and the co-owners has received 91833 sq.ft. of super built up area comprised in 70 residential apartments and 3 penthouses along with 27 covered car parking and 49 open car parking. The appellant has computed long term capital gains from transfer of property in pursuant to JD Agreement dated 01.04.2011 for assessment year 2012-13, by taking her share of consideration received for transfer of property. The appellant had also claimed deduction u/s. 54F of the Act towards constructed flats to be received from builder. The Assessing Officer, denied deduction u/s. 54F of the Act, on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns as laid down u/s. 54F by purchasing a new residential flat on 24.05.2012, in addition to new flats on which the benefit of deduction claimed u/s. 54F of the Act. Aggrieved by the CIT(A) order, the assessee is in appeal before us. 5. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, submitted that ld. CIT(A) has erred in not allowing deduction claimed u/s. 54F of the Act, towards new residential flat purchased on 24.05.2012 for a consideration of Rs. 1,45,00,000/-, even though the assessee has satisfied all conditions prescribed u/s. 54F of the Act for claiming the benefit of deduction. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, further submitted that no doubt, the builder did not complete the construction of residential apartments on or before three years, fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rom the date of transfer of original asset. Since, the assessee did not satisfied conditions for claiming deduction, the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) has rightly rejected deduction claimed u/s. 54F of the Act and their order should be upheld. 7. We have heard both the parties, perused materials available on record and gone through orders of the authorities below. The fact with regard to the transfer of property in pursuant to JD Agreement dated 01.04.2011 and consideration received in pursuant to said JD Agreement was not in dispute. In fact, the assessee and the Assessing Officer both agreed that there is a transfer of immovable property and consideration has been received for said transfer. The only dispute is with regard to the deduct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct deduction u/s. 54F on this ground. 8. Be that as it may. The assessee has made a new claim before the CIT(A) and sought deduction u/s. 54F of the Act, in respect of purchase of new residential house property purchased on 25.04.2012 for a consideration of Rs. 1,45,00,000/-. The ld. CIT(A) rejected alternate claim made by the assessee without discussing how such claim cannot be admitted. No doubt, the assessee is not entitled to claim deduction u/s. 54F of the Act, for flats received in pursuant to JD Agreement, because as per the Assessing Officer, completion of construction of said flats was completed in the financial year 2021. Since, construction of flats was not completed for the impugned assessment year, those flats cannot be trea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
