TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 580X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es, the disallowance of the entire exemption only because the construction was not completed is without any basis and/or merit and the said action of the Ld. CIT(A) deserves to be quashed. CIT(A) erred in disallowing the claim by making factually incorrect observations that the assessee had not deposited any amount in the capital gains scheme account whereas the amounts were duly deposited in the capital gains scheme account and duly utilized from the said account only. CIT(A) further erred to even take cognizance of the capital gains account which was placed on record. Owing to availability of sufficient evidences on record, we also hold that the stamp duty registration cost are hereby allowed. Appeal of assessee allowed. - ITA No. 79 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts by disallowing the expenses to the tune of Rs. 2,83,473/- incurred in lieu of purchase of the new residential unit, more so, when all evidence were duly submitted before the Authorities below. 3.1. Because the registration expenses were much over and above the amount claimed and all evidences were duly submitted before the lower authorities. 4. Because in the fact and circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO erred in making disallowances and the Ld. CIT(A) further erred in disallowing the entire deduction, rightfully claimed u/s 54F of the Act. 5. Because the Assessee denies its liability to be assessed at an income of Rs. 16,49,432/- as computed by the Ld. AO or at the enhanced income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oncealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. Accordingly, penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is initiated separately. 7. Aggrieved by the action of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who in turn, enhanced the income from capital gains to Rs. 1,73,65,056/- while disallowing the entire deduction u/s 54F. 8. The relevant findings as recorded by the Ld. CIT(A) in para 5.2.3 at Pages 16-17 are reproduced as under: 5.2.3 It is however clear that the construction of the flat was not completed within a period of 3 years. The plot of land was transferred on 14.05.15. The statement furnished by the appellant that construction was completed on 14.05.15 is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... before the Tribunal. 10. Thus, the only effective issue involved in the present appeal is the disallowance of deduction under section 54F, and enhancement made by the Ld. CIT(A) viz. a) that the amount of Sale Consideration was not deposited in the Capital Gains Account Scheme. b) That the claim of 54F is not applicable as the construction has not been completed. 11. Heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the material available on record. 12. In the instant case, undisputedly, the amounts for purchase of property and the construction thereon, were paid duly within the relevant period, as prescribed under law and that too from the Capital Gains Account. The said fact of the payments being made, has been admitted by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f original asset in the purchase of the plot of land and started construction though not completed, the assessee had complied with the provisions of section 54F and hence was entitled to the benefit of exemption claimed. Accordingly, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was set aside and directed the Assessing Officer to allow the claim of the assessee in respect of the benefit of exemption claimed under section 54F. [Para 11] Smt. Shashi Varma v. CIT [1997] 224 ITR 106 (MP.) More so, section 54 only says that within two years, the assessee should have constructed the house but that does not mean that the construction of house should necessarily be complete within two years. What it means is that the construction of house shoul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
