TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 1271X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the disallowance to the extent of investment made by the assessee in purchase of new asset and thus rightly computed the exemption U/S. 54F of the Act, proportionately to the amount invested - no infirmity in the orders of the lower authorities and accordingly uphold the same. - ITA No. 3442/CHNY/2019 - - - Dated:- 17-3-2020 - Mahavir Singh , Vice President For the Appellant : Hemalatha K., ACA For the Respondents : A. Sundararajan, Addl. CIT ORDER Mahavir Singh , Vice President 1. This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of CIT(A)-16, Chennai, in ITA No. 12/CIT(A)-16/2018-19 dated 26.11.2019. The Assessment was framed by Income Tax Officer, International Taxation Ward-1(2), Chennai for the A.Y. 2010 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of Mumbai ITAT in the case of Smt. Basaribanu Mohd. Rafiq Latiwala V. ITO in [2017]81 taxmann.com 62 (Mumbai-Trib.), wherein the issue is different from that of the appellant's case. 3. Briefly stated facts are that the original assessment was completed by the AO U/s. 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 10.01.2013, wherein the Assessing Officer admitted the sale consideration U/s. 50C of the Act at ₹ 1,06,17,750/- and restricted the exemption U/s. 54F of the Act, amounting to ₹ 83,62,888/-. The assessee claimed indexed cost of improvement but the Assessing Officer did not allowed the amount of ₹ 3,07,946/-. Aggrieved by the assessment order, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A), who vide order dated 23.01.201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sidering the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Humayun Suleman Merchant vs. CCIT, reported in [2016] 73 taxmann.com 2 (Bombay) upheld the computation of deduction made by Assessing Officer while giving the appeal effect to the order of Tribunal U/s. 54F of the Act. The CIT(A) noted that Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Humayun Suleman Merchant, supra held that the Assessing Officer has rightly computed the deduction U/s. 54F of the Act, restricting the investment in the new asset at ₹ 35 lakhs and thus restricting the exemption U/s. 54F of the Act proportionately to the amount invested is correct. Aggrieved against the findings of CIT(A), the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal. 4. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of Income. It is not disputed that on 4th November, 1996 when the return of income was filed, the entire amount which was subject to capital gain tax had not been utilized for the purpose of construction of new house nor were the unutilized amounts deposited in the notified Bank Accounts in terms of Section 54F(4) of the Act before filing the return of income. It is also to be noted that in line with the interpretation of Gauhati High Court on Section 54F(4) of the Act, the Assessing Officer had taken into account all amounts utilized for construction of a house before filing the return of income on 4th November, 1996 for extending the benefit of exemption under Section 54F of the Act. Therefore, in the present facts, the decision of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
