9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 1006X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ains. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee on this issue are allowed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeals) ought to have observed that the learned AO erred in not passing" an order after hearing such evidence as the assessee may produce and after taking into account all relevant material which he has gathered [language used in Sec.143(3)]" when the appellant's explanation and computation of deduction u/s. 54F was denied on the ground that it was not made in the ITR, which was unjustified in law. >3. In the facts and circumstances of case, learned CIT (Appeals) ought to have observed that the learned AO asked the appellant vide his letter dt. 3.12.2019 to file his response to the proposed assessment of long-term capital gains and the appellant filed explanation and information claiming deduction u/s. 54F, but denied the claim on the ground of absence of claim in the return of income. >4. In the facts and circumstances of case, learned CIT (Appeals) ought to have considered the appellant's claim for deduction u/s. 54F made with full details of his entitlement before the learned AO and reiterated before the learned CIT (Appeals) as he is empowered to entertain even fresh claims not made in the assessment. With the entitlement of Sec.54F deduction, the inco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n ITA No. 121/VIZ/2020 dated 25.06.2021 and he brought to our notice Para No. 9 & 10 of the order. Ld.AR pleaded that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) may be set-aside. >6. Per contra, Ld. Departmental Representative [hereinafter in short "Ld.DR"] relied on the orders of the Revenue Authorities. >7. We have heard both the sides and perused the material available on record. We observe that similar issue was considered and adjudicated by the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of R. Venkata Dhana Lakshmi v .ITO (supra) and decided the issue in favour of the assessee. While holding so the Coordinate Bench held as under: - >"9. We have heard both the parties and perused the material placed on record. There is no doubt that the assessee has entered into development agreement for construction of the flats and sold 4 flats as per the details given in this order and received the sale consideration. There is no dispute with regard to sale of flats and rates adopted by the AO. The Ld.AR did not bring any evidence to controvert the findings of the AO during the appeal hearing. Therefore, we uphold the action of the AO as well as the Ld.CIT(A) in treating the sale consideration re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h Court in the case of K. Ramachandra Rao (supra) wherein the following question was before the Hon'ble High Court : >"When the assessee invests the entire sale consideration in construction of a residential house within three years from the date of transfer can he be denied exemption under section 54F on the ground that he did not deposit the said amount in capital gains account scheme before the due date prescribed under section 139(1) of the IT Act?" >This was answered by Hon'ble High Court as follows : >"As is clear from Sub Section (4) in the event of the assessee not investing the capital gains either in purchasing the residential house or in constructing a residential house within the period stipulated in Section 54F(1), if the assessee wants the benefit of Section 54F, then he should deposit the said capital gains in an account which is duly notified by the Central Government. In other words if he want of claim exemption from payment of income tax by retaining the cash, then the said amount is to be invested in the said account. If the intention is not to retain cash but to invest in construction or any purchase of the property and if such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
