9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 1566X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 61 (here-in-after referred to as "the Act") relevant to the Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1.1 The order passed by u/s. 263 on 28.03.2023 by Pr. CIT-1 Abad holding the order of assessment passed u/s 143(3) on 10.11.2020 by AO to the extent of allowing the claim of exemption u/s 54F of Rs. 3,16,37,333/- was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue for want of adequate inquiry is wholly illegal, unlawful and against the principles of natural justice. 1.2 The order passed by u/s. 263 on 28.03.2023 by Pr. CIT-1 Abad holding the order of assessment passed u/s 143(3) on 10.11.2020 as erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue is illegal and unlawful. 2.1 The Id. Pr. CIT ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the returned income. The Ld.PCIT observed that the assessee had earned capital gain on sale of unlisted shares and availed exemption of Rs. 3,20,00,000/- under section 54F of the Act. The Ld.PCIT observed that since the Act prescribes that the assessee has to purchase/construct a residential house within the prescribed period of 3 years, the investment in construction cost of house owned by her husband and brother-in-law cannot be considered as eligible for availing exemption u/s. 54F of the Act. Thus, the Ld.PCIT issued notice u/s. 263 of the Act which was subsequently replied by the assessee along with the documents submitted before the Assessing officer. The Ld.PCIT after taking cognizance of the submission of the assessee held that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rovision of section 263 of the Act, as the assessment order is not at all erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue as the exemption u/s. 54F of the Act was in respect of investment made in the residential house in the name of assessee and not in other person as the land belongs to the assessee only. 6. The Ld.DR relied upon the order of the Ld.PCIT and submitted that the Assessing Officer has not taken into account that the land is not in the ownership of the assessee but that of her husband. Thus, the permission obtained for commencement of construction activity in the said land from the competent authority was also not furnished by the assessee and therefore no proper verification was done by the Assessing Officer at the t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
