TMI Blog2020 (4) TMI 660X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SHUKLA, J.M.: The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the impugned order dated 20.10.2016, passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-IV, Kanpur for the quantum of assessment passed u/s.143(3)/153A for the Assessment Year 2009-10. In the grounds of appeal, the assessee has challenged taxation of Long Term Capital Gain, which has been enhanced by the Ld. CIT(A) to ₹ 64,07,515/- in place of ₹ 30,17,456/- on account of investment made in purchase of new residential house as provided u/s. 54F(1)(a). 2. At the outset, ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that here in this case, original assessment was completed u/s.143 (3) by determining the total income of ₹ 38,35,743/- after making follow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... operties (each having 1/2 share) and the sale proceeds were invested in the purchase of residential house. The properties were sold for a total value of ₹ 2,60,61,000/- while the stamp duty paid on a total value of ₹ 4,71,91,000/-. The capital gain on the sale of the property was claimed as exempt by the assessee in view of the provisions contained in Section 54F(1)(b) of the Act. The Assessing Officer while not disputing the claim of the assessee for exemption u/s 54F(1)(b) of the Act in respect of investment of long term capital gain has calculated and worked out the addition of ₹ 30,17,456/- to the income as per working considering the full value of consideration as per Section 50C while determining exemption. The asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated the exemption u/s 54 of the investment made by adopting the figure of the sale consideration by invoking Section 50C of the Act. The CIT(A) has misdirected and enhanced the addition. The investment made in the purchase of new residential house, the essential criteria for allowing benefit of deduction u/s 54F(1)(b) of the Act was ignored. The Ld. AR submitted that Section 54F clearly states that if the cost of new asset is less than the net consideration in respect of the asset transferred, 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 u/s 54F. Nowhere does it mention consideration as per section 50C. The fictio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rovisions of the particular section and compute the exemption accordingly without imposing any section creating a legal fiction into the section. The Ld. AR relied upon the following decisions: i. Smt. Sabita Devi Agarwal vs. ITO, Ward-2(3), Siliguri [2019] 69 ITR(T) 231 (Kolkata Trib.) ii. Anant Chetan Agarwal vs. CIT, [2018] 172 ITD 525 (Lucknow Trib.) iii. ITO vs. Raj Kumar Parashar [2017] 167 ITD 237 (Jaipur Trib.) iv. DCIT vs. Dr. Chalasani Mallikarjuna Rao (2016) 161 ITD 721 (Visakhapatnam Trib.) v. Nand Lal Sharma vs. ITO [2015] 40 ITR(T) 518 (Jaipur Trib.) vi. Dhanveer Singh Gambhir vs. ITO, 3(2), Indore [2015] 56 taxmann.com 205 (Indore Trib.) vii. Prakash Karnawat vs. ITO (2011) 16 taxm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e order of CIT(A) and submitted that the CIT(A) has taken the cognizance of the Hon ble Karnataka High Court s decision in case of M/s. Gauli Mahadevappa vs. ITO 259 CTR 579. The Ld. DR submitted that the enhancement is properly justified by the calculation given by the CIT(A) in the order. 8. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant materials available on records. It is pertinent to note that the Assessing Officer admitted the claim of the assessee for exemption u/s 54F(1)(b) in respect of investment on long term capital gain but instead of taking actual sale consideration received, has adopted the figure of sale consideration by invoking Section 50C. This is not in accordance with the provision of Section 50C which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
