TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 555X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... holding that only the amount which was utilized by the assessee before 31.3.2008 only qualifies for deduction - in favour of assessee. - IT Appeal No. 106 (Mds.) of 2012 - - - Dated:- 15-6-2012 - N. S. Saini And V. Durga Rao, JJ. K. Balasubramanian for the Appellant Shaji P. Jacob for the Respondent ORDER N. S. Saini, Accountant Member This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A)-IX, Chennai, dated 31.10.2011. 2. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal: 1.1 Orders of the authorities below are contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case. 1.2. Authorities below erred in disallowing the claim of the appellant u/s 54F to the tune of ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9 i.e., ₹ 15,00,000. 1.7 Therefore, learned CIT (A) having allowed only ₹ 3 lakhs, ought to have allowed the balance ₹ 12,00,000 also u/s 54F. 1.8 Reliance for the above proposition is placed on the following case laws. ( a ) CIT v. Ms. Jagriti Aggarwal [2011] 245 CTR (Punj. Har.) 62 ( b ) Fathima Bai v. ITO [2009] 32 DTR (Kar.) 243 ( c ) CIT v. Rajesh Kumar Jalan [2006] 206 CTR (Gau). 3. The sole issue involved in this appeal is that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in not allowing deduction u/s 54F of the Act except to the extent of ₹ 3 lakhs allowed by the CIT(A) since the assessee had not deposited the sale consideration in the capital gains acc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... residential property with the builder M/s Mehta Havens Ltd was entered into on 2.5.2008 and ₹ 3 lakhs was paid on the very same day which was before the due date of filing of the return of income on 31.7.2008. 6. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 7. The A.R of the assessee submitted that the assessee not having filed his return of income for assessment year 2008-09 within the time allowed u/s 139(1) was eligible to do so till 31.3.2009 which was the extended time u/s 139(4) and accordingly, he filed his return of income on 9.1.2009. He further submitted that both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) failed to appreciate the scheme of section 54 and 54F which is to encourage owning of house so that shortag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s and perused the orders of the lower authorities and materials available on record. We find that the undisputed relevant facts of the case are that the assessee derived long term capital gain of ₹ 38,64,751/- on net sale consideration of long term capital asset of ₹ 51,75,000/- during the year under consideration. In respect of the above long term capital gain of ₹ 38,64,751/-, the assessee claimed in his return of income filed on 9.1.2009 exemption u/s 54F of ₹ 27,44,063/- on the ground of investment in purchase of new residential flat. It is not in dispute that the assessee is eligible for exemption u/s 54F in respect of his investment made in new residential flat. The only dispute before us is whether the assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s per the provisions of sub-section(4) for availing deduction u/s 54F in respect of those amounts also. In other words, as per the plain language employed in the above sub-section (4), only the amount which was actually utilized by the assessee for the purpose of purchase of the new residential house before the date of furnishing of the return of income u/s 139 shall only be eligible for computation of deduction u/s 54F(1) of the Act. We find that in the instant case it is not in dispute that the return of income for the relevant year was filed by the assessee on 9.1.2009, which is the date of furnishing of return of income u/s 139 by the assessee. Thus, in our considered view, the amount utilized by the assessee for purchase of new residen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the firm for its business purposes. We find that the facts involved before us are not similar and the issue involved is also quite different. The issue before us is whether the amount which was utilized by the assessee for making investment in purchase of new residential house before the date of filing of return u/s 139(4) qualifies for deduction u/s 54F(1) or only the amount which was utilized for investment in purchase of new residential house before the due date of filing of return u/s 139(1) alone qualifies for deduction u/s 54F(1) of the Act. We find that on the above issue view taken by us above in this order is fully supported by the decision of the Hon'ble P H High Court in the case of Ms. Jagriti Aggarwal ( supra ) wherein ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
