9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 769X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... before the Ld.PCIT. Besides, the said contention is subject to verification. Therefore this contention cannot be appreciated by us for arriving at any finding regarding the revisionary order passed by the Ld.PCIT. The Ld.PCIT has himself directed the AO to examine assesses eligibity to claim of exemption u/s 54F of the Act. On the basis of the facts before him and the position of law as appreciated by him correctly, the Ld. PCIT has arrived a finding error in the assessment order on account of incorrect allowance of claim of exemption u/s. 54 of the Act, which the assessee also does not deny / dispute. There is therefore no infirmity in the order of the Ld. PCIT holding the assessment order erroneous for having granted exemption u/s 54 to the assessee against the provisions of law in this regard. In the absence of any other argument made by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee before us we do not find any reason to interfere in the order of the Ld.PCIT and uphold the same. Appeal of the Assessee is dismissed. - Smt. Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member And Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Ms.Amrin Pathan, Ld.AR For the Revenue : Shri Shramde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the order u/s 263 on the basis of assumptions and presumptions. Without prejudice to the above 10. The learned PCIT erred in fact and in law in holding that the Appellant is not eligible for deduction u/s 54 of the Act. 3. As transpires from the order of the Ld.PCIT, the error noted by him in the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s. 143(3) of the Act in the case of the assessee for the impugned year ,was allowance of claim of exemption to capital gains earned by the assessee u/s. 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, despite the records clearly showing that the assessee was ineligible to the same. The Ld.PCIT noted from the records that the assessee had earned capital gain during the year by selling of plot of land. That, in the computation of income, the assessee had claimed exemption of the capital gain to the tune of Rs. 1,10,49,413/- on account of investment in purchase of another house property of Rs. 65,49,413/- and amount deposited in capital gain account with Bank of Baroda of Rs. 45 lakhs.1. The Ld.PCIT noted that exemption u/s. 54 of the Act is allowed only against capital gain earned from transfer of Long Term Capital Asset being building or l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under the said section. He drew our attention to the provisions of the section 54F of the Act, which is reproduced hereunder:- Section - 54F, Income-tax Act, 1961 - FA, 2023 Capital gain on transfer of certain capital assets not to be charged in case of investment in residential house. 54F. (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (4), where, in the case of an assessee being an individual or a Hindu undivided family, the capital gain arises from the transfer of any long-term capital asset, not being a residential house (hereafter in this section referred to as the original asset), and the assessee has, within a period of one year before or two years after the date on which the transfer took place purchased, or has within a period of three years after that date constructed, one residential house in India] (hereafter in this section referred to as the new asset), the capital gain shall be dealt with in accordance with the following provisions of this section, that is to say, (a) if the cost of the new asset is not less than the net consideration in respect of the original asset, the whole of such capital gain shall not be charged under section 45 ; ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hich such residential house is purchased or constructed. (3) Where the new asset is transferred within a period of three years from the date of its purchase or, as the case may be, its construction, the amount of capital gain arising from the transfer of the original asset not charged under section 45 on the basis of the cost of such new asset as provided in clause (a) or, as the case may be, clause (b), of subsection (1) shall be deemed to be income chargeable under the head Capital gains relating to long-term capital assets of the previous year in which such new asset is transferred. (4) The amount of the net consideration which is not appropriated by the assessee towards the purchase of the new asset made within one year before the date on which the transfer of the original asset took place, or which is not utilised by him for the purchase or construction of the new asset before the date of furnishing the return of income under section 139, shall be deposited by him before furnishing such return [such deposit being made in any case not later than the due date applicable in the case of the assessee for furnishing the return of income under sub-section (1) of section 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 54F of the Act. He, therefore, argued that this contention of the assessee that there was no prejudice caused to the Revenue needed to be dismissed. He pointed out that, in any case, it is not denied by the Ld.counsel for the assessee that its claim of exemption of capital gains u/s. 54 of the Act was wrongly allowed by the Assessing Officer and the assessee having not made its alternative claim before the Ld.PCIT for exemption u/s. 54F of the Act, which could have been verified by him also, the same cannot be entertained now for allowing the assessee s appeal. 5. Having heard the contentions of both the parties, we are in agreement with the Ld.DR. The contentions raised by the assessee against the order passed by the Ld.PCIT u/s. 263 of the Act ,of no prejudice being caused to the Revenue by the allowance of claim of exemption u/s. 54 of the Act by the Assessing Officer, is a fresh contention raised for the first time before us. The assessee had never raised such contention before the Ld.PCIT .Besides, the said contention is subject to verification.Therefore this contention cannot be appreciated by us for arriving at any finding regarding the revisionary order passed by the Ld. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
