Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2021 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (2) TMI 580 - AT - Income TaxLTCG - exemption u/s 54 - Non deposit of the sale consideration in capital gain scheme account prior to due date of filing of return under section 139(1) - Whether booking of flat is to be considered as a case of construction for the purpose of section 54? - AO Rejected the claim of the deduction as amount of capital gain has neither been invested in purchase or construction of residential house within the stipulated period, nor deposited in capital gain scheme account within limit provided section 139(1) and booking of flat is not purchase of flat because as per agreement to sale, construction of the flat was to be carried out and it was not completed till completion of assessment. HELD THAT:- As payment have been cleared from the bank account of the assessee before the due date of the filing of return under section 139(4) of the Act which was 31/03/2013 in the case of the assessee. As the investment in property has been made prior to due date of filing of return of income under section 139 (4) of the Act i.e 31/03/2013, therefore Respectfully following the decision of SHRI JAGTAR SINGH CHAWLA [2013 (4) TMI 499 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT], we are of the opinion that the assessee cannot be denied deduction on the ground that amount of sale consideration has not been invested in capital gain account scheme before the due date of the filing of return under section 139(1) of the Act. Eligibility of deduction 54 of the Act for booking of flat with private builders - The assessee has made entire payment within the period of three years from the date of the transfer of original asset, and therefore, the amount has to be treated as invested in purchase/construction. The provisions of section 54 nowhere prescribe construction of the house should be completed. The prime requirement is investment in new residential house within the prescribed period. Thus, respectfully following the Tribunal in the case of Ramprakash Miyav Bazaz[2014 (6) TMI 40 - ITAT JAIPUR] we are of the opinion that the assessee has complied the provision of section 54 of the Act in substance and therefore Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in confirming rejection of deduction under section 54 of the Act. We set aside the finding of the Learned CIT(A) on the issue in dispute and direct the Assessing Officer to allow the deduction claim under section 54 of the Act. The grounds of the appeal of the assessee are accordingly allowed.
|