TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 130X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court in the case of Humayun Suleman Merchant [ 2016 (9) TMI 70 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] has been rightly applied by the ld. CIT(A). Deduction u/s 54F - CIT(A) has clearly set out the fact vide para 9 of his impugned order. On perusal of the said para 9 of the impugned order, it is clear that only amount of Rs.4,00,000/- was utilized before due date for filing of the return of income for purchase of residential house and the entire balance consideration was paid on 27.07.2010, 28.08.2010 and 12.02.2011 which is clearly beyond due date for filing the return of income for the assessment year 2009-10 and it is undisputed fact that unutilized consideration was not deposited under the capital gains deposits scheme, as stipulated time under sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld. DR for condoning the delay, we find it is a fit case to condone the delay of 04 days and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4. The appellant raised the following grounds of appeal :- 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned A.O. has erred in assessing income of Rs.77,00,000/- as against Income as per Return of Rs.1,76,000/- and addition of Rs.75,24,000/- is on account of Long Term Capital Gain. The addition made on that account should be deleted. 2. Without prejudice to Ground No 1 the A.O. has erred both on facts and in law in treating amount of Rs. 75,24,000/- as Long Term Capital Gain should be deleted. 3. Without prejudice to Ground No 2, the fact that the relevant details of the claim u/s 54B and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... harande Promoters Builders had entered into an agreement with M/s Manik Builders for the sale of land at Gat No.122, located at Borhadewadi, Moshi, Tal. Haveli at a consideration of Rs.3,00,00,000/- on 06.09.2008. On perusal of the same, it was observed by the AO that Santosh Maruti Borate (Appellant) was one of the owner of the said plot and he had received his share consideration of Rs.77,00,000/- by cheque. Further, it was also observed that he had not offered to tax any capital gains arising out of the sale of the above said land. The AO, had reason to believe that the income of Rs.77,00,000/- had escaped assessment. Therefore, notice u/s 148 was issued in this case on 22.03.2016. Further, during the assessment proceedings, the AO not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not submit before the AO any supporting bills or receipts in support of its claim of exemption u/s 54F. The appellant had, thus, failed to satisfy before the AO, the basic conditions of section 54F and 54B, therefore, the AO disallowed the claim of deduction u/s 54F and 54B of the Act. With the result, the AO assessed the total income of the appellant at Rs.77,00,000/- as against his returned income of Rs.1,76,000/-. 6. Being aggrieved by the above assessment order, an appeal was filed before the ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned order confirmed the disallowance of claim of deduction u/s 54B on the ground that unutilized sale proceeds were not deposited in the capital gains deposits scheme placing reliance on the decision of the Jurisdiction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me are dismissed. 11. The ground of appeal no.4 and 5 are consequential in nature therefore, the same are dismissed as such. 12. The ground of appeal no.3 challenges the disallowance of claim for deduction u/s 54B as well as 54F of the Act. We have carefully gone through the impugned order, wherein, the ld. CIT(A) has set out the clear facts relating to the claim for deduction u/s 54F and 54B of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) clearly stated that the appellant purchased new agricultural land and entered into an agreement dated 28.06.2010 with Kande family for consideration of Rs.31,00,000/- and registered by paying stamp duty of Rs.1,24,000/-. However, the appellant paid consideration of Rs.4,00,000/- only on the date of agreement and the bal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted under the capital gains deposits scheme, as stipulated time under sub-section (4) of section 54F of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) had rightly restricted the deduction to the extent of investment made in construction of new house till the date of construction of the house property and the ratio of the decision of the Hon ble Bombay High Court (supra) is squarely applicable. Therefore, we find that the order of the ld. CIT(A) is well reasoned and based on the proper appreciation of facts and legal position governing the issue on hand. Accordingly, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the ld. CIT(A). Thus, the ground of appeal no.3 filed by the assessee stands dismissed. 13. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
