9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 108X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tum of capital gain arising at the hands of the assessee and that it was invested in purchase/construction of residential house. We find, there is no material to doubt the correctness of the findings recorded by the Tribunal. While procedural lapse may have been caused by the assessee in observing the provision of Section 54 of the Act, in absence of real prejudice having arisen to the revenue, upon claim capital gain having been allowed by the Assessing Officer the Tribunal may have rightly allowed the assessee's appeal. Seen in the context of an assessee with modest means, we find, the CIT had unnecessarily drawn up revision proceedings upon a procedural lapse as no real prejudice may have ever arisen to the revenue authorities in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lding that when the basic condition of Section 54(1) of the Act has been satisfied, the foregoing provision of Section 54(2) of the Act becomes redundant ? 4. Undoubtedly, the assessee sold residential house in which she had a share. The sale took place on 22.03.2012 and the share of the assessee came to Rs. 31,03,000/-. Against that capital gain was computed at Rs. 14,59,321/-. Other things apart it is admitted to the revenue that the assessee did purchase another house property on 11.09.2013 and that she did invest the eligible amount of capital gain in raising constructions etc. Thus, it was the case of the assessee that she withdrew Rs. 5,00,000/- and Rs. 4,00,000/- on 26.11.2012 and again Rs. 4,00,000/- on 12.06.2013, which withdrawals ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ocedural lapse may have been caused by the assessee in observing the provision of Section 54 of the Act, in absence of real prejudice having arisen to the revenue, upon claim capital gain having been allowed by the Assessing Officer the Tribunal may have rightly allowed the assessee's appeal. 9. Seen in the context of an assessee with modest means, we find, the Commissioner of Income Tax had unnecessarily drawn up revision proceedings upon a procedural lapse as no real prejudice may have ever arisen to the revenue authorities in the context of petty amount involved. 10. Thus, we find, no substantial question of law arises in the facts of the present case. Leaving other issues to the revenue to contest in appropriate appeal proceeding, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
