TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 1161X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ari [ 2008 (6) TMI 15 - MADRAS HIGH COURT ] would come to the aid of the assessee. Order passed by the Tribunal this aspect has not been dealt with in a proper perspective, especially when CITA has given elaborate reasons as to why the assessee is entitled for deduction under Section 54 of the Act. We are inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal, at the same time, we propose to remand the matter to the assessing officer for fresh consideration since other issues have also been remanded to the assessing officer for re-adjudication. Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and matter is restored to the file of the assessing officer to decide the claim of the assessee for deduction under Section 54. - Tax Case Appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or brevity 'CITA') dated 18.11.2016 where the relief was granted to the assessee. In this appeal, the only issue is, with regard to claim of deduction under Section 54 of the Act. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that with regard to the issue placed before the CITA, who has reiterated the same, rendered a categorical finding and there is no discrepancy. However, Tribunal came to the conclusion that the assessee is not able to produce any evidence in support of their contention. In this regard, the learned counsel has drawn our attention to the findings rendered by the CITA and the observations made in Paragraph Nos.12 to 16 of the order dated 18.11.2016: 12. I have perused the above contentions of the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l asset. However, the amount of investment had originated from the advance of ₹ 25,00,000/- received from the purchaser of the original capital asset on 18.10.2010 vide cheque number 773545, drawn on State Bank of India. I have verified the relevant sale deed executed on 16.05.2011 and at Page 12 of the Deed, the relevant facts regarding the payment of advances to the shareholders are mentioned. The name of the appellant is figuring at serial number (iii) as vendor no.III. 14. The appellant had paid an amount of ₹ 5,00,000/- as advance to the builder for construction of house property on 06.01.2012 vide cheque no.311829. 15. The total amount of investment as per Section 54 EC and in the capital gains account works ou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed within the period of three years, as stipulated u/s 54 of the Act, cannot be accepted in view of the decisions in the cases of Kishore H.Galaiya V. ITO (ITA No.7326/M/2010; Seetha Subramaniam V. ACIT (1996 (59) ITD 94 Madras; CIT V. Sardamal Kothari (2008 (302) ITR 286 (Mad) wherein it was held that the asessee can claim exemption even if construction was not completed on time if a substantial payments towards cost of construction was made by the assessee within the period of three years from the date of sale of the original asset. In the present case of the appellant, the entire amount of ₹ 1,27,03,079/- has been invested in the construction of the new house property (Including the purchase of plot) within the period of three year ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in subsequent decisions. However, the order passed by the Tribunal this aspect has not been dealt with in a proper perspective, especially when CITA has given elaborate reasons as to why the assessee is entitled for deduction under Section 54 of the Act. 8. Therefore, we are inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal, at the same time, we propose to remand the matter to the assessing officer for fresh consideration since other issues have also been remanded to the assessing officer for re-adjudication. For the above reasons, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed, the order dated 02.11.2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the assessing officer to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
