9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 1067X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are being disposed of by this consolidated order. For the sake of brevity, the facts involved in ITA.No.1154/H/2015 for the A.Y. 2005-2006 are as under. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual filed her return of income for the A.Y. 2005- 06 on 01.08.2005 declaring income of Rs. 5,29,877. During the assessment year under consideration, the assessees has purchased a property and sold the property for the same value. Hence, the assessee has not admitted capital gains on the transaction. However, on verification of the records for A.Y. 2004-05, it was observed that the property in question was purchased in order to claim exemption u/s. 54. Since, the property on which exemption u/s. 54 was sold within 3 years the co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (36,88,753-34,03,603) Rs. 2,85,150 STCG Rs. 29,64,850 2.2. Thus, the A.O. added an amount of Rs. 29,64,850 to the income returned. Aggrieved, by the order of the A.O. assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) on 18.08.2011 with a delay of 6 months 12 days along with condonation petition. The Ld. CIT(A) vide his order received on 18.08.2012 dismissed the assessee's appeal without adjudicating the matter on merits stating that the delay in filing of appeal does not deserve to be condoned. The ITAT vide order ITA No. 1591/Hyd/2012 dated 07.11.2013 remitted the issue to CIT(A) to examine the issue afresh and decide the issue in accordance with law. The Ld. CIT(A) issued a notice of hearing dated 29.06.2015 and the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bring to the notice of A.O. that after disposing of the property, the assessees along with five others purchased a second property and also submitted that it is a question to be decided by this Tribunal as to whether Section 54F is applicable or not to the facts on hand. 5. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material available on record, it is noticed that the undisputed facts of the case are that, the assessees purchased a property at Road No.7, Banjara Hills relevant to A.Y. 2004-05 and due to some reasons that property was sold at the same price. Again, during the same assessment year, the assessees purchased another property along with 5 others at Road No.12, Banjarahills, Hyderabad and claimed capital gain exemption under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch assessee's share was Rs. 32,50,000. It was stated that assessee again made investment of his share in sale proceed in a residential house at plot No.1092, Road No. 45, Jubilee Hills on 01.05.2005 purchased for a consideration of Rs. 2,05,07,445 in the name of his wife Smt. Neena Dharod and son Mayur Dharod. Thus, it was submitted that since investment at Road No. 45, Jubilee Hills was made within a period of two years from the date of sale of original asset, assessee would still be entitled for exemption u/s 54 of the Act. Having considered the submissions of the assessee in the context of the facts and materials on record we find force in them. There is no dispute that assessee has made investment in the new property at Road No.45, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
