DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. C.M. RAJESH, HYD, HYDERABAD

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD ‘ B ‘ BENCH, HYDERABAD.

BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE)

ITA No.142/Hyd/2016 (Assessment Year : 2009-10) Dy. Commissioner of Vs. Shri C. M. Rajesh, Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle 3(1), Hyderabad. PAN ABTPC8391G Appellant Respondent

Appellant By : Shri Rohit Majumdar (D.R.) Respondent By : Shri P. Murali Mohana Rao (A.R.)

Date of Hearing : 20.10.2021. Date of Pronouncement : 24.11.2021.

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.

2 ITA No.142/Hyd/2016 2. 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 ------

3 ITA No.142/Hyd/2016

4 ITA No.142/Hyd/2016

5 ITA No.142/Hyd/2016 3. 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.

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

6 ITA No.142/Hyd/2016 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.

No other argument ahs been raised before us. 5. This Revenue’s appeal is dismissed in above terms. Order pronounced in the open court on 24th Nov., 2021. Sd/- Sd/- (A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY) (S.S. GODARA) Accountant Member Judicial Member Hyderabad, Dt.24.11.2021. * Reddy gp Copy to : 1. Shri C.M. Rajesh, Plot No.1295, Road No.63, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad-500 033 2. DCIT, Circle 3(1), Hyderabad. 3. Pr. C I T-3, Hyderabad. 4. CIT(Appeals)-3, Hyderabad. 5. DR, ITAT, Hyderabad. 6. Guard File.

By Order Sr. Pvt. Secretary, ITAT, Hyderabad.