Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2021 (10) TMI 747

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... on 54F of the Act to align it with its object and observed that the utilisation of the consideration in the construction of residential house is sufficient to be eligible for deduction notwithstanding the fact that the construction of residential house has not been fully completed within three years. The thrust is on utilisation rather than completion of construction of residential house. The view taken by the A.O. to allow deduction under section 54F based on parameters of utilisation made in construction is thus plausible view and cannot be faulted. This being so, the order of the A.O. cannot be held to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Consequently, the powers available under section 263 of the Act cannot be ex .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ce of the assessee against the revisional order of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) (PCIT in short), Raipur communicated to assessee on 30.03.2021 passed under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act in short) whereby the Assessment Order passed by the Assessing Officer (A.O.) dated 31.08.2018 under section 143(3) of the Act concerning Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2016-17 was sought to be set aside for reframing the assessment in terms of supervisory jurisdiction. 2. As per its grounds of appeal, the assessee has challenged the revisional action of the PCIT whereby the Assessing Officer (A.O.) was directed to pass the assessment order denovo after making enquiries on the points set out in the notice which has alrea .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... on the point. The PCIT accordingly passed the revisional order and set aside the assessment. The A.O. was directed to make adequate enquiry with reference to allowability of deduction under section 54F of the Act. 6. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal. 7. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. It is contended on behalf of the assessee that the case was selected under limited scrutiny for this very point and the issue was examined threadbare by the A.O. It was submitted that the assessee received consideration of ₹ 2,44,88,918/- on account of transfer of Long Term Capital Asset i.e. sale of ownership land on 20.08.2015 and claimed deduction under .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... truction of the residential house should be completed within three years as per the judicial precedents and what is required is that investment should be made in construction of house within the specified period of three years. A reference was made to the decision rendered in the case of : - CIT vs. Sardarmal Kohari (2008) 302 ITR 286 (Mad), Page Nos.160 to 162 of Paper Book, relevant finding on page no.162; - Bhavana Cuccria vs. ITO (2017) 165 ITD 124 (Chd.) Page Nos.119 to 129 of Paper Book, relevant findings on page no.129; - Pr. CIT vs. Dilip Ranjrekar (2019) taxmann.com 114 (Karn.) Page Nos.130 to 132 of Paper Book, relevant findings on page no.131; - Bal Kishan Atal vs. ACIT (2019) 176 ITD 330 (Del), page Nos.163 to .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tion in the construction of residential house is sufficient to be eligible for deduction notwithstanding the fact that the construction of residential house has not been fully completed within three years. The thrust is on utilisation rather than completion of construction of residential house. The view taken by the A.O. to allow deduction under section 54F of the Act based on parameters of utilisation made in construction is thus plausible view and cannot be faulted. This being so, the order of the A.O. cannot be held to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Consequently, the powers available under section 263 of the Act cannot be exercised in the facts of the case. 11. This apart, we also notice the plea of the a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates