TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1966X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d construction of a new residential property before the time allotted to file her return of income u/s.139(4). The argument of ld.D.R is having no merit. The income of assessee, if excluded the capital gain that the impugned amount of addition, is below the taxable income. Being so, the assessee is not liable to file her return u/s.139 of the Act. Since the assessee has invested the impugned amount in construction of a new residential house within the time is allowed u/s.139(4) of the Act, the assessee is entitled u/s.54F - Decided in favour of assessee. - I.T.A.No.325/Mds./2017 - - - Dated:- 6-11-2017 - SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, J. Appellant by : Ms.A.sushma Harini, Ms.S.Sriniranjani,Advocates Respondent by : Mr.B.Sagadevan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it was contended by the assessee that she had invested the entire sale consideration of ₹ 25,50,000/- in the purchase and construction of new residential property. In the meantime, the assessee e-filed return of income on 22/11/2012 admitting income from Long Term Capital Gain at ₹ 1,81,870/-. However, the return was not filed within the extended due date and hence, was non est. Perusal of the relevant details revealed that the assessee had invested in the property only after the due date for filing of her return of income u/s139(1) i.e. 31/07/2010 and the net sale consideration was also not deposited in the Capital Gain Account Scheme as envisaged in section 54F. Hence, in view of the above facts and circumstances of the case; ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filing of return of income u/s.139(1). And the unutilized net sale consideration was to be deposited in Capital Gain Account Scheme as envisaged in section 54F. In the present case of the assessee, neither the net sale consideration was utilised towards construction of new property nor was the same kept in the Capital Gain Account Scheme. Hence, on this account also the assessee failed to qualify for the deduction under section 54F. 3.2 Ld.CIT(A) was of the opinion that the construction of the new house property was not completed within the period of three years from the date of sale of the original asset. Interestingly, the construction of new house property was incomplete on the date of passing of the assessment order on 20/08/2013. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3/02/2010 for a total consideration of ₹ 75,00,000/-and her share was at ₹ 25,50,000/-. The assessee has not filed her return of income within the time allotted u/s.139(1) of the Act i.e. 31.07.2010 on the reason that the income of assessee was below the taxable limit. However, the assessee invested the entire consideration of ₹ 25,50,000/- in the purchase and construction of a new residential property before the time allotted to file her return of income u/s.139(4) of the Act and she contended that she is entitled for deduction u/s.54F of the Act. However, the ld. Assessing Officer issued notice u/s.148 for reopening of assessment u/s.147 dated 13.12.2012, which was duly served on the assessee. The assessee claimed that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tal asset u/s. 54(2) of the Act, the amount has to be deposited in a bank under capital gains scheme as notified by the Central Government within a time limit available to file return of income u/s. 139(4) of the Act has held by the Hon ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jagriti Aggarwal 339 ITR 610. If the assessee completes the construction of a new residential house within three years from the date of sale of capital asset, assessee is entitled for deduction u/s.. 54 of the Act. Now the contention of the Id. Departmental Representative is that assessee has not appropriated towards construction of new residential house as it was not completed. In our opinion as held by Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
