TMI Blog2020 (9) TMI 238X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sfer of the original asset. CIT(A) also agrees that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the decisions of the Hon'ble Karnataka and Calcutta High Courts but chooses to follow the decisions against the assessee. In the case of CIT Vs. Godavari Devi Saraf [ 1977 (9) TMI 24 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] has held that - in the absence of a decision from the jurisdictional High Court, the decision of another High Court which is in favour of the assessee has to be followed. Hence, the order of the CIT(A) is not sustainable and the assessee s claim of exemption u/s.54F has to be examined in the light of the details submitted by the assessee and the report of the valuer submitted by the assessee in the absence of sufficient details as t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ad No.3, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad sold the same for a sum of ₹ 3,54,40,000/- vide Sale Deed dt.06-03-2006. The sale consideration was shared by the co-owners in proportion to their land holding (₹ 75,20,500/- for his share of 400 Sq. Yds. of land held by the present assessee). The respective assessee s claimed exemption of capital gains on purchase of a residential house collectively in the year 2006 itself to the extent it was incurred for purchase and the balance of the amount was deposited in the Capital Gains Scheme Account. The period of three years in the assessee s case expired in the AY.2009-10 and as per the information available on record for the AY.2006-07, the Assessing Officer (AO) observed that the assessee has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peal. Wrongly observed that I would like rely upon the decisions which are in the favour of the department. 3. The decisions relayed upon by the CIT(A) pertains to investment made towards extension, modification or renovation for the existing old building but appellant purchased building and made modification and renovation for his use. 4. The CIT(A) wrongly came to conclusion that the appellant made investment towards extension or modification or renovation of existing house, whereas, in fact, the appellant purchased the house and modified the house to make it habitable as per requirement, which clearly comes under 54 or 54F of the Act. 5. The finding of the CIT(A) on the aspect of limitation is patently erroneous and contra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion u/s.54F of the Act. 8. Having regard to the rival contentions and material on record, we find that the assessees have sold an open plot of land with an AC shed thereon on 06-03-2006 and therefore Long Term Capital Gain has arisen therefrom. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee has submitted before us that the assessee have purchased another house for a sum of ₹ 40 Lakhs on 29-03-2006 and have invested the balance consideration also in renovation of the said house and have claimed expenditure for such renovation also as exempt u/s.54F of the Act. We find that in para 3 of the assessment order, the AO has brought out that during the course of first appellate proceedings of the CIT(A) s order dt.22-10-2014 for the AY.2006-07, there i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nataka and Calcutta High Courts but chooses to follow the decisions against the assessee. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Godavari Devi Saraf (1978) 113 ITR 589 (Bom) has held that - in the absence of a decision from the jurisdictional High Court, the decision of another High Court which is in favour of the assessee has to be followed . Hence, the order of the CIT(A) is not sustainable and the assessee s claim of exemption u/s.54F of the Act has to be examined in the light of the details submitted by the assessee and the report of the valuer submitted by the assessee in the absence of sufficient details as the construction was allegedly done in the year 2006. Therefore, we deem it fit and proper to remit the iss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
