Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2020 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (1) TMI 1058 - AT - Income TaxEligibility for deduction u/s 54 - denial of claim as assessee had not complied with the requirement of section 54 by depositing the amount into the specific bank account as notified in the Act, in terms of section 54(2) - HELD THAT:- The assessee should be given the benefit of deduction u/s 54 of the Act on the sum invested by the assessee in the construction of new residential house within the time allowed u/s 139(4) of the Act. My this view is fortified by the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Kolkata Tribunal in the case of Sunayana Devi v. ITO [2017 (9) TMI 961 - ITAT KOLKATA] wherein held that Assessee should be given the benefit of deduction under section 54F and cannot be denied the benefit for the reason that he had not complied with the requirements of section 54(2). Assessee could make investment in construction of new building within three years from the date of transfer of the asset for claiming deduction u/s 54 of the Act. Section 54 of the Act are beneficiary and are to be considered liberally. In view of the above discussion, I am inclined the remit the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer to quantify the amount of exemption u/s 54 of the Act. The assessee is directed to prove the investment in residential building as prescribed u/s 54 of the Act before the due date of filing of the return u/s 139(4). Accordingly, this issue is remitted for the limited purpose of quantifying the amount of deduction to the file of the A.O. after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes.
|