TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 733X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er which the benefit was claimed, was erroneously mentioned as 54F instead of section 54 which is the correct section. Issue in dispute in the present appeal before us is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by cases of Shrikar Hotels (P.) Ltd.[ 2017 (2) TMI 679 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] , Natraj Stationery Products (P.) Ltd. [ 2008 (11) TMI 48 - HIGH COURT DELHI] , Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd. [ 2018 (8) TMI 198 - KERALA HIGH COURT] , Armine Hamied [ 2022 (9) TMI 35 - ITAT MUMBAI] and Jai Kumar Gupta (HUF) [ 2019 (3) TMI 466 - ITAT MUMBAI] Thus we direct the Assessing Officer to compute benefit u/s 54 of IT Act on merits, having regard to applicable law and relevant facts and circumstances; and we order the Assessing Officer to a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /s 54/54F of IT Act. Perusal of record shows that the assessee filed the copy of sale deed purchase deed in support of the claim. On perusal of the records, it is noticed that assessee sold a residential house bearing House no. 34/021, 9-A, Shahnajaf Road, Lucknow for a sale consideration of Rs.1,05,00,000/- against the market value of Rs.74,10,080/- on 10.03.2016 and further invested Rs.1,06,00,000/- in Flat No.103, Imperial Block, Eldeco Green Apartments, Lucknow for which sale deed was executed on 30/03/2016. Hence, assessee has sold a residential house invested the amount in purchase of residential flat. Thus the assessee sold a residential house and invested the amount in purchase of residential flat. In respect of the aforesaid tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stating as under: As I am a senior citizen, 74 year old now and undergoing medical treatment for age related ailment. I request you to kindly arrange to put my appeal before the Hon'ble I.T.A.T. on a fast track mode so that it may be heard and decided expeditiously. (C.1) The assessee s appeal came up for hearing before us on 08/05/2023. At the time of hearing before us, learned Counsel for the assessee was present along with the Karta of the assessee HUF. Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee was eligible for the benefit u/s 54 of IT Act but due to a bonafide and inadvertent typographical mistake, the claim was made erroneously u/s 54F of IT Act instead of section 54 of IT Act which is the correct sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as erroneously made u/s 54F instead of section 54, which is the correct section, under which the assessee is eligible for benefit. He submitted further that the assessee was eligible for benefit u/s 54 of Act which should be granted to the assessee and Revenue should not derive undue advantage of a bonafide and inadvertent typographical misake made by the assessee. Learned counsel for the assessee also relied on the following judicial precedents: (i) Shrikar Hotels (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax-I, Lucknow 79 taxmann.com 63 (Allahabad) In the present case, Assessee claimed deduction under a provision in Chapter VIA and in the return also a claimed deduction with reference to Section 80 IB(7) but subclause mentioned was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ely different from was no fresh claim was such In our considered view, therefore, the Assessing Officer was indeed in error in adopting such a hyper pedantic approach and in holding that there was a fresh claim for exemption under section 54F. (Quoted) (v) Assistant Commissioner Of Income vs Jai Kumar Gupta (HUF), Mumbai IN FACT F BENCH MUMBAI Therefore, in the facts of the present case, since the capital gain arises from sale of residential house, the assessee is eligible to claim deduction under section 54 of the Act. That being the case, the Jai Kumar Gupta (HUF) restrictions imposed under the proviso to section 54F(1) of the Act will not apply to the assessee. Therefore, we do not feel the necessity to deliberate on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or benefit u/s 54 of IT Act. The assessee s claim u/s 54 of IT Act was not allowed by the Assessing Officer and by the learned CIT(A) only on the technical ground that the assessee made the claim u/s 54F of IT Act instead of section 54 of IT Act. We have already expressed the view earlier that the claim made by the assessee u/s 54 of IT Act was not a new claim. Accordingly, we hold that the conclusion arrived by learned CIT(A) and the Assessing Officer that the assessee s claim u/s 54 of IT Act is a new claim is, factually wrong in the specific facts and circumstances of the present appeal before us. The assessee had already made this claim in the return of income, although, in an inadvertent and bonafide typographical mistake, the section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
