TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 1066X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3(3) of the Act. Subsequently, the AO detected that the assessee invested in a property and not shown the amount of capital gain of ₹ 13,45,760/-. Therefore, the AO presumed that there was an excess claim of ₹ 13,45,760/- U/s.54F of IT Act. Hence, believing the reason that income chargeable to tax escaped assessment for the year, the AO has issued notice u/s.148/147 of the IT Act. The AO observed that the assessee has invested in a property and thus claimed the excess amount of ₹ 13,45,760/- as an exemption U/s.54F of the Act. Therefore, based on the above reasoning, the AO added ₹ 13,45,760/- to the total income of the assessee. 3. Aggrieved from the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A), who has also confirmed the addition made by the AO observing as under :- 3.3 The additional evidences sent to the A.O. for remand report. The A.O. sent the remand report on 16.09.13 which was received on 17.09.2013 which is as under:- In compliance, the A.R. of the assessee appeared and made submission stating that as per I. T. Act, exemption U/s. 54F is available if the assessee invested the consideration of L. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that:- I have gone through the submission of the assessee, the recorded reasons for initiating proceedings u/s. 148 and assessment order u/s. 143(3)/147 dated 29.12.2010. Considering the above submission and facts of the case, it is appeared that there is no such irregularity in this submission of the assessee. The assessee has claimed the deduction u/ s. 54F for the amount invested in the Residential Flat during the period i.e. one year before and two year after the date of transfer of long term capital asset as per the time limits stipulated in the said section. Therefore, we request you to please allow the exemption of ₹ 13,45,760/ - to our client as provided in section 54F of Income tax Act, 1961. 3.5 I carefully considered the assessment order, submission of the appellant, additional evidences filed by the appellant and copy of the remand report and its rejoinder. I found that the capital gains arise of ₹ 13,45,760/- out of sales of shares of various companies. The appellant shown the investment in flat. The appellant given the advances to the M/s. TOLLY Nirman Private Ltd. On going through the details and evidence filed by the appellant, I fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sideration in respect of the original asset, the whole of such capital gain shall not be charged under section 45; (b) if the cost of the new asset is less than the not consideration in respect of the original asset, so much of the capital gain as bears to the whole of the capital gain the same proportion as the cost of the new asset bears to the net consideration, shall not be charged under section 45. From the above, it proved that the flat was completed on 10.01.2007 and the appellant also not taken the possession of the flat before 10.01.2007. Hence, it established that the appellant purchased the flat beyond 2 year from the capital gain arised. The case law relied upon by the appellant are not related to the purchase of property within stipulated time. Hence, the appellant is not entitled the exemption u/s. 54F of the I. T. Act. Therefore, I confirm the addition made by the A.O. of ₹ 13,45,760/- by rejecting the claim u/s 54F of the I. T. Act. This ground of appeal is not allowed. Not being satisfied with the order of CIT(A), the Assessee is in further appeal before us. 4. Although in this appeal the assessee has raised multiple grounds of appeal but ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case of assessee for furnishing the return of income under subsection( 1) of section 139 in an account in any such bank or institution as may be specified in, and utilized in accordance with, any scheme which the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, frame in this behalf and such return shall be accompanied by proof of such deposit; and for the purposes of sub-section (1), the amount, if any, already utilized by the assessee for the purchase or construction of the new asset together with the amount so deposited shall be deemed to be the cost of the new asset: Provided that if the amount deposited under this sub-section is not utilized wholly or partly for the purchase or construction of the new asset within the period specified in sub-section (1), then,- (i) The amount by which- (a) The amount of capital gain arising from the transfer of the original asset not charged under section 45 on the basis of the cost of the new asset as provided in clause (a) or, as the case may be, clause (b) of sub-section (1), exceeds (b) The amount that would not have been so charged had the amount actually utilized by the assessee for the purchase or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the claim of exemption u/s. 54F of the Act in A.Y 2005-06. Accordingly, the basic reason on an issue for which the assessment was re-opened fails. Hence, any addition made other than the reason for which the assessment was reopened would also automatically fail as the assumption of jurisdiction itself fails on the part of the ld.AO. This issue is now well settled by the decision of the Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd reported in 331 ITR 236 Bom.) 8. Respectfully following the aforesaid judicial precedents, we have no hesitation to quash the re-assessment proceedings on the ground that there was no tangible material with the ld.AO for initiation of re-assessment proceedings. We also find that in view of provisions of section 54F(4) r.w. proviso thereon, there is no scope for making any addition in A.Y 2005-06. Hence, there could not be any reason to believe that income has escaped assessment for the A.Y 2005-06. Accordingly, ground nos. 1 2 raised by the assessee are allowed. The assessee also relied on the following judicial pronouncements :- i) Dhadda Exports Vs. ITO, [2015] 58 taxmann.com 176 (Rajasthan); ii) CIT Vs. M/s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
