Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2015 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (5) TMI 989 - ITAT HYDERABADRevision u/s 263 - error in the order of the Assessing Officer in accepting the claim of the assessee under S.54F - Held that:- It is not disputed that the assessee has in fact deposited the total amount in the purchase of the residential house during the stipulated period. Merely because the assessee has availed a bank loan of ₹ 45,45,855 and has invested in the purchase of the residential house, it cannot be denied exemption under S.54F of the Act. The fact that money to that extent has not come directly from the sale proceeds of the original asset received by the assessee, is not decisive of the issue. The fact remains that the amount received by the assessee on the sale of the original asset owned by it was invested in the purchase of the residential asset within the stipulated time, partly from the sale proceeds of the original asset directly and partly from the borrowed amount. The assessee has fulfilled all the conditions of investment of the equivalent amount of the sale proceeds in the purchase of residential house qualifying for relief under S.54F, by investing the money out of the sale proceeds of the original asset available with it or by borrowing from the bank. We find that the decision of the Hyderabad Tribunal in Smt.V.Kumuda V/s. DCIT (2012 (2) TMI 212 - ITAT HYDERABAD) relied upon by DR relates to a decision in the Miscellaneous Application preferred by the assessee. At any rate, it is clear that two views are possible on this issue before us, and the view taken by the Assessing Officer was a possible view and could not be said to be a perverse view. The issue of granting deduction/exemption under S.54F on the borrowed money can at best be called a debatable issue. Thus AO has taken a possible view permitted under law, and is as per the series of decisions of different benches of the Tribunal. It could not be said that the order of the Assessing Officer was erroneous or prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. In this view of the matter, we hold that the Commissioner was not justified in setting aside the assessment framed under S.143(3), as the order of the Assessing Officer could not be said to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. - Decided in favour of the assessee.
|