9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 167X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issuing notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which is illegal and bad in law hence the assessment so made requires to be quashed. 2. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in reopening the assessment only on the basis of AIR and CIB information and passing an order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961. 3. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 28,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer by making disallowance of exemption claimed by the appellant u/s 54 of the I.T. Act, 1961. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or modify all or any of the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing." 2. Brief facts of the case are that the case of assessee fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of the view that a new residential house was purchased after lapse of five years and the assessee has paid only amount of Rs. 5.00 lacs as a booking amount. As per Section 54 of the Act, if the funds are not utilized after six months, from the date of sale of asset, the same is to be kept in a bank or institution as may be specified and to be utilized in accordance with the scheme notified by the Central Government. 3. On the basis of such view, the Assessing Officer issued show cause notice dated 06/11/2018. The contents of show cause notice is recorded in para 6 of assessment order. The assessee filed her reply dated 19/11/2018. The contents of reply of assessee is recorded in para 7 of assessment order. The assessee in her reply state ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... only to do so and that the assessee has paid only Rs. 5.00 lacs, therefore, deduction claimed under Section 54 of the Act to be disallowed and recalculated again. On the basis of such observation, the Assessing Officer disallowed the entire deduction of Rs. 28.00 lacs. 5. Aggrieved by the reopening as well as addition in the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed detailed written submission. The submission of assessee is recorded in para 4 of order of ld. CIT(A). Besides challenging the reopening, the assessee submitted that during the assessment, the assessee furnished details of sales and asset and purchase of new residential property at Ahmedabad. The assessee furnish ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... explained that she complied the condition of Section 54F(1) of the Act by purchasing and constructing new residential property. The provisions of Section 54F are beneficial provision and to be considered liberally in the aspect of limitation period. The only condition is investment must be in residential property which the assessee has complied. The assessee also relied on the decision of Mumbai Tribunal in ITO Vs. Nilima Abhijit Tannu & Anr. 7. The ld. CIT(A) after considering the submission of assessee held that the amount of capital gain was not utilized before furnishing return of income i.e 31/07/2012. Such fact is admitted by the assessee that the capital gain was not deposited in the capital gain scheme. Section 54(2) of the Act sp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... idered liberally in the aspect of limitation period. To support his submission, the ld AR for the assessee relied on the following decisions; CIT Vs Smt Umayal Annamalai (2020) 273 Taxman 145-Mad, Xariver J Pullikal Vs DCIT (2016) 72 taxmann.com 34 -SC, CIT Vs Venkata Dilip Kumar (2021) 124 taxmann.com 198 -Mad, CIT Vs Jagruti Aggarwal (2011) 5 taxmann.com 146 (P&H), CIT Vs Shakuntala Devi (2016) 75 taxmann.com 222 (Kar), Aniruddh Rinki Gandhi Vs DCIT (2022) 137 taxmann.com 160 (Ahem- Tribu.), Dr Dharmista Mehta Vs ITO (2022) 144 taxamann.com 136 (Mum-Tri) Seema Sabharawal Vs ITO (2018) 91 taxmann.com 2 (Chandigarh-Trib) and Harminder Kaur Vs ITO (2021) 126 taxmann.com 160 (delhi-Trib). 9. On the other hand, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Punjab & Haryana High Court in Jagruti Aggarwal (supra) held that where the assessee sold residential house and utilized the sale consideration for booking flat in housing project which was yet to be constructed, since assessee had made entire payment toward investment in new flat within period of three years from the date of transfer of original asset, amount was to be treated as invested in purchase / construction of new residential property and assessee is to be allowed exemption under section 54. I find that fact of the said case is similar and the ration of above decision is clearly applicable on the facts of the present case. 11. Further, Mumbai Tribunal in Dr Dharmista Vs ITO (supra) also held that exemption under section 54 shoul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
