Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD ‘ B ‘ BENCH, HYDERABAD.
Before: SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY & SHRI S.S. GODARAShri C. M. Rajesh,
O R D E R Per Shri S.S. Godara, J.M. : This assessee’s appeal for Asst. Year 2009-10 arises from the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Hyderabad’s order dt.17.11.2015 passed in case No.976/DC 3(1)/CIT(A)-3/14-15 in proceedings under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’).
Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
Coming to the Revenue’s sole substantive grievance that the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in allowing the assessee 54F deduction claim of Rs.5,70,41,313/-, we note that lower appellate discussion to this effect read as under :
“ 4.1 Ground Nos.2 & 3 are on the issue of disallowance of 54F claim of Rs.5,70,41,313 for the A.Y. 2009-10.
---- Space left intentionally ------
Mr. Majumdar vehemently contended during the course of hearing that the Assessing Officer had rightly disallowed the assessee's impugned deduction in view of the fact that he owned more than one residential house in light of section 54F(1) proviso (a)(i) of the Act. We find no merit in the Revenue’s instant argument. This is for the reason that atleast one of the said twin residential properties i.e. situated in Sagar Society, Navodaya Colony was found to be an open plot without any residential house raised thereupon as per the Assessing Officer’s remand report in 2008-09’s appeal proceedings. The same has already attained finality therefore.
The Revenue’s next argument quotes 54F(1) proviso (a)(ii) that an assessee is not entitled for the impugned deduction if he purchases any residential house other than the new asset, within a period of one year after the date of transfer of the original asset. We note in this backdrop that the assessee had claimed the impugned section 54F deduction for having reinvested his capital gains in a house property bearing H.No.8-2-293/82/A/801, Jubilee Hills Co-operative House Building Society, Road No.36, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad in issue. There is no material that he has purchased any other such house, within the specified period of one year in foregoing proviso i.e. transfer of the shares in M/s. Rithwik Projects (P) Ltd. in the impugned assessment year 2009-10 only. We make it clear that the Revenue has nowhere sought to dispute that transfer of assessee's shares took place in Assessment Year 2009-10 (Para 2.1 in assessment order) only. We therefore find no reason to accept the Revenue’s instant latter argument as well.