9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 36X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rty for claiming exemption of capital gains under the said section. Even DR was unable to controvert this interpretation of the provision of law before us. In view of the same, it is abundantly clear that in the present case that the CIT has misinterpreted the provision of law to hold that the assessee was ineligible to claim exemption u/s. 54F of the Act on the investment made in the land beyond two years since it was beyond the time limit prescribed in law and, accordingly holding the assessment order to be in error causing prejudice to the Revenue for having allowed the assessee this claim. Thus no reason to confirm the order of the CIT, finding his exercise of revisionary power to be based on an incorrect interpretation of the pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that the present order passed by the Ld. Pr.CIT is not sustainable in law since the Ld. Pr.CIT has held the assessment order erroneous on an incorrect application of law to the issue under consideration. 3.1. Drawing our attention to the facts of the case, Ld. Counsel for the assessee pointed out that the Ld. Pr.CIT found the assessment order passed in the case of the assessee, u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) to be erroneous causing prejudice to the Revenue for the reason that it had been incorrectly allowed the claim of deduction of Capital Gain earned u/s. 54F of the Act to the tune of Rs. 6,82,74,989/-. He pointed out fro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TOTAL VALUE 7,73,08,000 Amount deposited in designated capital gain account Scheme, 1988 as approved by IT Authority 54F(4) 8,50,00,000 6,80,96,439 TOTAL EXEMPTION CLAIMED DURING THE YEAR u/s. 54EC AND 54F 14,13,71,427 3.2. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that the Ld. Pr.CIT noted that the exemption claimed u/s. 54F of the Act by the assessee on account of purchase of land was wrongly allowed to the assessee since the land had not been found to have been purchased within the prescr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which is reproduced in the order of the Ld. Pr.CIT in Paragraph No.5.1. He contended that the purchase of land by the assessee for the purposes of claiming u/s. 54F of the Act was with the intention of a construction of house property for which a period of three years is allowed as per the provisions of law . That the Pr. CIT had misinterpreted the provisions of section and applied the time limit prescribed for the purchase of a new property, to the intention of construction of a new property by the assessee to hold that it was beyond the prescribed time limit. That, therefore the Ld. Pr.CIT had incorrectly applied the provisions of law to the facts of the case for holding the assessment order erroneous for having allowed the assessee s cla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
