ARUNAVA BHATTACHARJEE,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 9(2), KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 203/KOL/2022Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 June 2023AY 2016-174 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred by applying the conditions of Section 54F to a deduction claimed under Section 54. The conditions of Section 54F regarding owning multiple residential houses are not applicable to Section 54.

What were the facts?

The assessee sold a guest house and claimed long-term capital gains deduction under Section 54/54F. The PCIT initiated revision proceedings under Section 263, observing that the assessee owned multiple residential properties, which would disallow deduction under Section 54F.

What were the issues?

Whether the PCIT correctly invoked revisionary powers under Section 263 by misapplying the conditions of Section 54F to a claim made under Section 54.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263,Section 54,Section 54F

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH KOLKATA

Before: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

order : June 09, 2023 आदेश / ORDER संजय गग�, �या�यक सद�य �वारा / Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member: The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 01.02.2021 of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Kolkata [hereinafter referred to as ‘PCIT’] exercising his revision jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’).

2.

The ld. PCIT observed from the assessment records that the assessee had sold a Guest House, located at Ganganagar on 20.02.2016 at Rs.4,50,00,000/- which was acquired on 01.12.2007. The assessee computed Long Term capital gain of Rs.2,00,26,945/- from the sale of the aforementioned property and out of the said capital gain, the assessee had claimed a deduction of Rs.1,17,03,326/- u/s.54EC in ITR. But in its revised computation the assessee had Assessment Year: 2016-17 Arunava Bhattacharjee claimed deduction of Rs.1,18,22,046/- u/s.54/54F of the Act. However, in the assessment order the AO allowed deduction to the tune of Rs.1,17,03,326/- u/s. 54/54F against the assessee's claim of Rs. 1,18,22,046/-. The ld. PCIT further observed from the details of immovable asset as submitted by the assessee in Balance Sheet as on 31.03.2016 that the assessee was in possession of three residential unit viz. (1) 50% shareholding of property at 190/1 Biddhan Nagar Road, Kolkata-67, (2) Flat No.2601 Height Tower 8, Uniworld City, Rajarhal, Newtown, Kol-156 and (3) Flat No. 2201, Height Tower 8. Uniworld City, Rajarhat, New town, Kol-156 during the F.Y. 2015-16. But as per sub- section 1(b) of Section 54F, deduction u/s. 54F is not allowable if the assessee owns more than one residential house, other than the new asset, on the date of transfer of the original asset. He therefore observed that the assessee owned more than one residential house, other than the new asset on the date of transfer (20.02.2016) of the original asset, hence, the assessee was not eligible to claim deduction u/s 54/54F of the Act and allowing the same in the assessment order was irregular and required to be disallowed. He show-caused the assessee in this respect. In response, the assessee submitted that during the assessment proceeding the assessee had claimed deduction of Rs.1,67,03,026/- u/s 54EC of the Act, whereas, the maximum deduction permissible under the said section was Rs.50,00,000/-. That thereafter the revised computation was furnished and the deduction u/s 54EC was claimed at Rs.50,00,000/- and further deduction of Rs.1,17,03,326/- was claimed u/s 54 of the Act.

3.

Before the ld. PCIT, It was explained that section 54 was applicable in the case of the assessee not the section 54F. However, the

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →