TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 1075X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n agreement on 05.03.2012 wherein the contractor was required to complete the construction within a period of 12 months. Considering the same, the construction would have been completed well within the stipulated time - delay in construction is nowhere attributed to the assessee and the assessee could not be penalized for delay on the part of the contractor to complete the construction particularly considering the fact that the provisions of Sec.54F are beneficial provisions to promote investment in housing sector and encourage investments in acquisition of residential property. Once the assessee is found eligible to claim the same, the benefit should be granted to full extent as held in various judicial pronouncements. Therefore, the de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ANT MEMBER): 1. Aforesaid appeals by Revenue for Assessment Year (AY) 2011-12 arise out of common order passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Chennai [CIT(A)] on 13-12-2019 in the matter of separate assessments framed by Ld. Assessing Officer (AO) for different assessees u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act on 30-12-2018 / 31-12-2018. The facts as well as issues are quite identical in all the appeals. The grounds raised in ITA No.495/Chny/2020 read as under: - 1. The order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to the law and the facts of the case. 2.1 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing partial relief to the assessee in respect of amount spent towards construction of new property without tak ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Kuppam Village for Rs.33 Crores on 19.04.2010. All the joint owners purchased a property at Medavakkam High Road, Perambur for Rs.11.30 Crores and claimed deduction u/s 54F. 3.2 The assessee computed its share in the sale consideration for Rs.495 Lacs. The assessee computed Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG) of Rs.478.99 Lacs and claimed deduction u/s 54F for proportionate investment made in residential land for Rs.254.67 Lacs. Since entire sale consideration was not invested, the deduction u/s 54F was claimed proportionately for Rs.246.43 Lacs and taxable LTCG were computed at Rs.232.55 Lacs which were offered to tax. 3.3 The Ld. AO re-computed assessee share in the sale consideration for Rs.513.67 Lacs. The indexed cost was computed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s much beyond the requisite date of completion i.e., April, 2013 and the assessee did not deposit the unutilized amount in Capital Gains Account Scheme. Accordingly, the deduction so claimed u/s 54F was denied by Ld. AO. Appellate Proceedings 4. The Ld. CIT(A) noted the schedule of payment received by the assessee upon sale of property and the investment so made in various financial years as under: - No. Financial Year Amount Recd. (Rs.) Amount invested (Rs.) 1. Up to 31.03.2009 Rs.275 Lacs -- 2. 2009-10 Rs.290 Lacs -- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n account scheme before date of filing of return u/s 139(1) is concerned, reliance was placed on the decision of Chennai Tribunal in ACIT vs T.S. Arunachalam, (ITA No.2455/Mds/2017 dated 30.01.2018) wherein it was held that it was not necessary and it was enough if the assessee had invested substantial portion of net consideration in new asset within the stipulate period. Further, the contractor was required to complete the construction within 12 months and it was beyond the control of the assessee to complete the construction within stipulated period. The provisions of Sec.54F were beneficial provisions to promote investment in housing sector and encourage investments in acquisition of residential property. Finally, the claim was allowed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rom the date of transfer of capital asset. Certain amount was retained for construction of property whereas the remaining portion was offered to tax. 9. It could also be seen that the assessee entered into construction agreement on 05.03.2012 wherein the contractor was required to complete the construction within a period of 12 months. Considering the same, the construction would have been completed well within the stipulated time. However, the delay in construction is nowhere attributed to the assessee and the assessee could not be penalized for delay on the part of the contractor to complete the construction particularly considering the fact that the provisions of Sec.54F are beneficial provisions to promote investment in housing secto ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
