TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 938X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... We order so. Coming to assessee’s claim of deduction u/s 54F, the documents on record reveal that the assessee, jointly with her husband sold a commercial premises situated at Thane (W) vide Agreement for Sale dated 21/10/2008 for a sale consideration of ₹ 45 Lacs. The assessee, jointly with her husband, acquired certain rights in properties situated at Claremont vide allotment letter dated 08/10/2008 pursuant to application dated 05/02/2008, by making payment of ₹ 27.72 Lacs from time to time, the details of which have already been extracted in the quantum assessment order. Subsequently, as per the request of assessee dated 10/09/2009, the said booking has been transferred to another property situated at Westgate as evidence ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Thane, Appeal No.THN/CIT(A)- II/Wd.1(3)/Thn/714/2011-12 dated 06/08/2013 qua rejection of assessee s claim u/s 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Briefly stated the assessee being doctor by profession was assessed u/s 143(3) by Ld. Income Tax Officer-Ward-1(3) [AO] , Thane on 26/12/2011 at ₹ 27.30 Lacs after denial of deduction u/s 54F as against returned income of ₹ 8.23 Lacs filed by the assessee on 16/09/2010. 3. During impugned AY, it was noted that the assessee sold a plot of land on 21/10/2008 for a total sale consideration of ₹ 45 Lacs and computed Long Term Capital Gain [LTCG] of ₹ 23.26 Lacs after adjusting indexed cost of acquisition of ₹ 21.73 Lacs. Against the resultant LTCG of & ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es. Finally, adopting sale consideration to be ₹ 45.45 Lacs u/s 50C after deducting revised indexed cost of acquisition, LTCG was worked out at ₹ 19.06 Lacs and deduction u/s 54F was denied to the assessee. The perusal of computations as made by Ld. AO reveal that there are computational errors in the calculations since revised indexed cost of acquisition works out to be ₹ 19,06,640/- [7,99,347/- x 582/244] instead of ₹ 26,28,360/- as taken by Ld. AO and the resultant LTCG works out to be ₹ 26,28,360/- instead of ₹ 19,06,640/- as taken by Ld. AO. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee contested the same without any success before Ld. CIT(A) vide impugned order dated 06/08/2013 wherein Ld. CIT(A) concurred wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der these circumstances and also keeping in view the legal position, thus, I hold that the long term capital gain shown by the appellant in her return of income cannot be disturbed at this stage. Since the long term capital gain pertains to the appellant, the investment made by the appellant can only be considered for the purposes of deduction u/s. 54F of the Act. Undisputedly, the appellant has made investment till 31st March 2009 to the tune of ₹ 14,27,702/- only and hence the same can only be considered for the purposes of section 54F of the Act. Consequently, the investment made by her husband cannot be considered for claiming deduction u/s. 54F in the hands of appellant as her husband is an independent assessee. 4.1 On ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ered view that the investment made by appellant in the construction of new house amounting to ₹ 14,27,702/- does not qualify for exemption u/s.54F of the Act. Thus, I hold that the A.O. has rightly disallowed the claim of exemption u/s.54F Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. 5. The Ld. Authorized Representative for Assessee [AR], Shri M.Subramanian, drawing our attention to the documents placed in the paper-book contested the stand of lower authorities. Reliance has been placed on several judicial pronouncements to support the stand that the assessee was entitled for deduction u/s 54F. Per Contra, Ld. Departmental Representative [DR], submitted that the assessee failed to fulfill the conditions prescri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uated at Claremont vide allotment letter dated 08/10/2008 pursuant to application dated 05/02/2008, by making payment of ₹ 27.72 Lacs from time to time, the details of which have already been extracted in the quantum assessment order. Subsequently, as per the request of assessee dated 10/09/2009, the said booking has been transferred to another property situated at Westgate as evidenced by fresh allotment letter dated 22/10/2009 issued by the same builder. The explanation of the assessee, in this regard, as evident from the documents on record, is that the construction of the building Claremont was not coming as per the schedule and therefore, the assessee after a mutual discussion with the builder decided to shift the payment t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
