TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 1512X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iled, during the assessment also this issue had come up for consideration. The petitioner in communication dated 03.09.2010 had pointed out to the assessing officer the investments made with the Rural Electrification Corporation and in purchase of immovable property. Thus, quite apart from the reasons recorded by the assessing officer not indicating any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully all material facts, even the record suggests to the contrary. Reopening quashed - Decided in favour of assessee. - Special Civil Application No. 14600 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 21-12-2015 - Akil Kureshi And Mohinder Pal, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr Tushar P Hemani, Adv, Ms Vaibhavi K Parikh, Adv For the Respondent : ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cation Corporation which was allotted on 30.09.08 and deduction of ₹ 28,77,429/- u/s 54 F on residential property which was purchased on 29.11.08. The assessee being an individual was required to file his return of income for A.Y.2008-09 by 31.07.2008 and the unutilized amount was required to be deposited as specified in section 54F. As the unutilized amount was not deposited before the due date of filing of return i.e. 31.07.2008 the deduction of ₹ 28,77,429/- u/s 54F could not be allowed. According to section 54F capital gain on transfer of certain capital assets not to be charged in case of investment in residential house subject to the provisions of sub-section (4) which states that where the amount of the net cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cial Gazette, framed in this behalf and such return shall be accompanied by proof of such deposit. On verification of the records, it is seen that the unutilized amount was not deposited before the due date of filing of return i.e. 31.7.2008 hence the deduction of ₹ 28,77,429/-u/s 54F could not be allowed. 3. The petitioner objected to the notice of re-opening. The assessing officer, however, rejected such objection by order dated 13.5.2015. Hence this petition. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the materials on record, it appears that during the year under consideration, the assessee had sold his immovable property and had earned long term capital gain of ₹ 78.38 lakhs (rounded off) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted out that not only that all such declarations were in the returns filed, during the assessment also this issue had come up for consideration. The petitioner in communication dated 03.09.2010 had pointed out to the assessing officer the investments made with the Rural Electrification Corporation and in purchase of immovable property. In such letter, the assessee had produced the following documents: (3) Photocopy of the investment in bond Rural Electrification Corporation Limited and house property documentary evidence is filed. The capital gain bond REC and house is purchased odut of the sale consideration received as per column 2 to get the benefit u/s.54EC 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Same is shown in capital gain comp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
