TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 348X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... house within 3 years. Thus once the assessee has reinvested its entire sale consideration for purchase / construction of another new asset within extended due date of filing return of income u/s.139(4) 139(5) of the Act, and also filed necessary evidences to prove that construction of house property was completed within 3 years from the date of sale of original asset, then there is no reason for the ld.CIT(A) to direct the AO to once again verify whether house property was constructed within 3 years from the date of transfer of original asset. Hence, we set aside the direction given by the CIT(A) and direct the AO to allow deduction claimed u/s.54F of the Act - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No.:3258/CHNY/2018 - - - Dated:- 31- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... could not be completed within the period of 15 months as stated in the agreement entered into with the builder. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, derives income from salary and income from capital gains, filed his return of income for the assessment year 2013-14 on 05.07.2013 admitting total income of ₹ 21,42,800/-. Subsequently, the assessee has filed revised return on 05.09.2014 admitting total income of ₹ 7,84,900/- after claiming exemption u/s.54F of the Act, for ₹ 13,57,906/-. The case was taken up for scrutiny and during the course of assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that the assessee has derived long term capital gain from sale of property and claimed exemption u/s.54F ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... such consideration is used for purchase / construction of new asset on or before due date u/s.139(4) or 139(5) of the Act, then deduction cannot be denied. In this regard, relied upon the decision of Hon ble Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jagriti Aggarwal (2011) 339 ITR 610. The CIT(A) after considering relevant submissions of the assessee and also by following certain judicial precedents including the decision of Hon ble Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jagriti Aggarwal, supra, held that the assessee has reinvested entire sale consideration of ₹ 19,20,000/- for purchase of land by paying consideration of ₹ 33 lakhs within the due date as mentioned u/s.139(4) 139(5) of the Act. However, i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or not. 6. The ld.DR on the other hand strongly supporting order of the ld.CIT(A) submitted that there is no error in findings recorded by the CIT(A) because facts with regard to date of completion of new house was not forthcoming from the order of the AO and hence, there is no merit in the arguments of the assessee that the CIT(A) has erred in directing AO to verify the issue. 7. We have heard both the parties, perused materials available on record and gone through orders of the authorities below. It is a well settled principle of law that even if sale consideration was not utilized for acquiring new asset within the due dates specified under the Act, deduction can be claimed, if consideration is deposited in capital gain deposit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 3 years. Therefore, we are of the considered view that once the assessee has reinvested its entire sale consideration for purchase / construction of another new asset within extended due date of filing return of income u/s.139(4) 139(5) of the Act, and also filed necessary evidences to prove that construction of house property was completed within 3 years from the date of sale of original asset, then there is no reason for the ld.CIT(A) to direct the AO to once again verify whether house property was constructed within 3 years from the date of transfer of original asset. Hence, we set aside the direction given by the CIT(A) and direct the AO to allow deduction claimed u/s.54F of the Act. 8. In the result, all the appeal filed by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
