TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 407X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rty which was jointly owned by him and constructed four new flats but has claimed only as per his own share excluding the wife s share as well. All the criteria of Section 54 was fulfilled by the assessee. In fact assessee s wife got the relief for her share as claimed by her from the Revenue in respect of Capital Gains Scheme. Thus, the Assessing Officer should have not rejected assessee s claim on the different footing which was rightly claimed by the assessee. Therefore, Assessing Officer as well as CIT(A) was not right in making the addition on this account. - I.T.A. No. 1477/DEL/2016 - - - Dated:- 6-8-2019 - Shri N. K. Billaiya, Accountant Member And Ms Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member For the Appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssed to tax and had made separate deposit of ₹ 50 lacs in Capital Gain Account Scheme which was totally ignored by learned CIT(A). 5. That orders passed by learned CIT(A) and learned Assessing Officer are against the principles of natural justice. 6. That the appellant craves the leave to add, amend, modify, delete any of the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing and all the above grounds are without prejudice to each other. 3. During the year under reference, the assessee had sold a property at Qutab Enclave Complex, Phase-II, Gurgaon and claimed exemption under Section 54 under the head Long Term Capital Gains. The Assessing Officer disallowed ₹ 69,42,053/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... herein it is held that construction and reconstruction are interchangeable terms and in fact every reconstruction is construction. In view of the above judgment, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee is eligible for exemption under Section 54 of the Act as the consideration received on transfer of long term capital asset, being residential house property, is unutilized/ invested in reconstruction of the residential house property owned by the assessee. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee had duly complied with the provisions of Section 54 of the Act and the construction was a new one and not a renovation of existing building, the old house stood demolished completely. The Ld. AR further submitted that law does not provide that the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is liable to be deleted. 6. As regards to Ground No. 3 and 4, the Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A) has given only partial relief to the assessee u/s 54 of the Income Tax Act while passing order u/s 154/250 of the Act though deposit of ₹ 75 lacs was made by the assessee under Capital Gains Scheme on 31/03/2011 (from jointly held account with his wife). The assessee s wife (Mrs. Mala Aneja) is separately assessed to tax and had made separate deposit of ₹ 50 Lakhs in Capital Gain Account Scheme (though bank statement is jointly held by her with the assessee). As per the provision of Income Tax Act, 1961, where amount of capital gain is not appropriated or utilized by the assessee for purchase or construction of res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that there is tax evasion if the assessee is allowed the claim under Section 54 of the Act. 8. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. The Assessee has submitted computation of income of the assessee as well as wife of the assessee before the Assessing Officer as well as before the CIT(A). From the perusal of the same it can be seen that the assessee duly deposited ₹ 75,00,000/- which is his share in Capital Gain Accounts before 31.03.2011. The assessee demolished the existing residential property which was jointly owned by him and constructed four new flats but has claimed only as per his own share excluding the wife s share as well. Therefore, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
