9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 410X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r has erred in holding that the sum of Rs. 16,26,300/- invested by the assessee in the new residential house was not eligible for the claim of exemption u/s 54F of the Act. 3. The Hon'ble Commissioner ought to have held that the investment in the new residential house was in a sum of Rs. 2,15,31,502/- as claimed by the assessee and on the basis of which the exemption u/s. 54F of the Act was computed, instead of restricting the eligible investment to Rs. 1,99,21,202/-. 02. Brief facts are, the assessee filed return of income for the assessment year 2011-12 declaring total income of Rs. 35,60,620/- inclusive of long-term capital gains of Rs. 10,69,101/-. During the assessment year, the assessee has sold a residential site for an amount ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relief granted by the CIT (A) for an amount of Rs. 1,99,21,202/- and assessee is for the relief not granted. ITA.703/Bang/2016 : Revenue's appeal : 04. It was the case of the Revenue before us that the assessee immediately after selling the house had invested the sale proceeds in mutual funds to the extent of Rs. 10 lakhs and Rs. 2 crores. Thereafter had only purchased the villa on 31.03.2011 by investing an amount of Rs. 1,99,21,202/- and therefore the assessee is not entitled to the benefit of Section 54F as the money was not directly invested by the assessee into purchasing the property, rather it was invested firstly in mutual funds and thereafter in the property. 05. On the other hand the Ld. AR has submitted that the assessee had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he return of income, i.e., the assessee is required to deposit the whole or part of the consideration unutilised in any of the scheduled bank / institution before furnishing the return of income and then only the assessee shall be entitled to the benefit u/s.54F of the Act. 07. In the present case, the capital asset was sold on 26.02.2011. The capital asset was purchased on 31.03.2011 and before the purchase of the capital asset the amount was deposited in mutual funds. Therefore in the considered opinion of the bench, before the date of filing of the return, not only the capital asset was purchased by the assessee on 31.03.2011, but also the assessee had deposited and invested an amount of Rs. 15 lakhs with Canara Bank. Therefore the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee is in appeal before us. 08. It was submitted that all these payments made by the assessee were in respect of additional fixtures and furniture and for that purposes, the assessee relies upon the decision of the Ahmedabad bench of the Tribunal in the matter of Rajat B Mehta v. ITO [ ITA No.19/Ahd/2016, dt.09.02.2018], wherein the Tribunal in paras 8 and 9 held as under : 8. When the above position was put to the learned Departmental Representative, he was fair enough in not really being very aggressive in disputing our perspectives on the artificial splitting of contracts. He, however, pointed out that it was never the case of the assessee that these two agreements were required to be viewed togetherparticularly in the light of the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal is eventually decided. Coming to the correctness of the plea taken by the assessee, that aspect of the matter is no longer really relevant at this stage. Be that as it may, it is difficult to miss the fact that rather than going by the first principles and examining the claim of the taxpayer on that basis, more often than not, most of the us are tempted to identify the highest common factors of an available judicial precedent vis-à-vis the case in our hands, and treat it as a covered matter. Whatever be the merits of this approach, and there are certainly many merits in this approach, even when it results in a lapse, such a lapse cannot be allowed to prejudice the legitimate interests of the assessee. Here is an NRI who decid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icer to delete the disallowance of deduction under section 54 to the extent of Rs. 18,00,000. The assessee will get the relief accordingly. 09. On the other hand the Ld. DR has submitted that these amounts are not required to be allowed. 10. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. The assessee had only invested the amount of Rs. 1,94,49,302/- in purchasing the villa and has also invested an amount of Rs. 15 lakhs in Canara Bank, a scheduled bank, in accordance with the provisions of Section 54F. Thus, at the most the assessee is entitled to exemption of Rs. 1,94,49,302/- plus Rs. 15 lakhs. However the claim of the assessee is Rs. 1,94,49,302/- plus Rs. 16,26,300/- which comes to a total of Rs. 2,10,75,602/-. In our co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
