TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 181X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 111 - ITAT CHANDIGARH] in the similar issue of belated return has granted the benefit of section 54 to the assessee. It is not the case that the said decision of the ITAT has been reversed by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court. - Decided in favour of assessee - ITA No. 771/CHD/2015 - - - Dated:- 28-6-2016 - Shri Bhavnesh Saini, Judicial Member And Shri Shamim Yahya, Accountant Member For the Appellant : Sh. Manjit Singh For the Respondent : Sh. Tej Mohan Singh ORDER Per Shamim Yahya, AM This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A), Panchkula dated 31.07.2015 and pertains to assessment year 2012-13. 2. The grounds of appeal read as under:- 1. On the facts and circumstances of the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the Assessing officer made the disallowance holding as under:- The assessee purchased a Kothi No.1171, Sector-70, at Urban Estate, 5.A.S. Nagar, Mohali (measuring 500 sq. yds)} for ₹ 4,28,30,000/- on 15.11.2012. The assessee has claimed exemption u/s 54 in respect of the amount invested in the purchase of said Kothi The amount of capital gain, which was not utilized by the assessee for the purchase or construction of the new house before the date of furnishing of the return of income must have been deposited by her under the Capital Gains Accounts Scheme, before the due date of furnishing the return, specified under section 139(1). The due date of filing of ITR in this case was 31.07.2012 which was further extended on31.8.2012. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the long term capital gain amount of ₹ 4,50,00,000/- is made t o the taxable income of the assessee. 5. Upon assessee's appeal, the Ld. C IT(A) decided this issue in favour of the assessee by holding as under:- 7.8 Regarding the third issue, on claim of exemption u/s 54, it is noted that the appellant sold her half share of property on.19.05.2011 and as per provisions of section 54 the amount of capital gain could have been used by purchase or construction of new house upto 18.05.2013. The appellant has purchased new house on 15.11.2012 for a consideration of ₹ 4,28,30,000/- and further purchased REC Bonds for ₹ 50,00,000- on the same- date. On reference to section 54(2), it is noted that for claim of ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore, the appellant has utilized the amount of capital gain by making investment of ₹ 4,28,30,000/- in purchase of new house before the furnishing of return u/s 139 of the Act. The facts in the instant case is also similar to the case of Ms. Jagriti Aggarwal (supra) where the Hon'ble P H High Court has allowed the exemption u/s 54 by holding that due date of furnishing return of income as per section 139(1) of the Act is subject to the extended period provided under sub section (4) of section 139 of the Act. Therefore, the exemption u/s 54 is allowable for utilization of capital gain of 30 O/- being the investment in purchase of new house. Against the above order, the Revenue is in appeal before us. 6. We have heard both ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and Another Vs. C IT (supra) was with reference to section 276CC and hence the same is not applicable on the facts of the present case. The Ld. counsel further placed reliance upon ITAT, Chandigarh Bench decision in the case of Sh. Mohan Singh Vs. ACIT in ITA No.330/Chd/2014 order dated 7.7.2015. Ld. counsel submitted that in this case, on identical facts in the case of a belated return, the Tribunal following the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of M/s Jagriti Agarwal (supra) has granted benefit to the assessee of exemption u/s 54 of the Act. Hence, the Ld. counsel pleaded that the order of Ld. CIT(A) needs to be confirmed. 8. We have carefull y considered the submissions and find that there is a judgement o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
