MRS. NIRMALA SUBRAMANIAN,MUMBAI vs. CIT(A)-26, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3746/MUM/2019Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 September 2022AY 2007-088 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) rejected the claim on flimsy grounds regarding additional evidence. The issue of the date of acquisition for Section 54 purposes was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed exemption under Section 54 for long-term capital gains on the sale of a residential property. The Assessing Officer denied this exemption, stating the new property was purchased before the sale of the old one. The CIT(A) upheld this denial, also noting the submission of additional evidence without proper application.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 54 and the correct date of acquisition of the new residential property for this purpose.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 54,Section 143(1),Section 147,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI

For Appellant: Shri NM Porwal, AR
For Respondent: Shri Ujjawal Chavan, SR AR
Hearing: 20.09.2022Pronounced: 20.09.2022
1.

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the appellate order passed by learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-26, Mumbai dated 26.06.2018 for A.Y. 2007-08. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:-

“1. In the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT appeal erred in confirming disallowance of exemption claimed u/s 54 of the Income-tax Act, 1956 on account of Long Term Capital Gain of ₹15,52,100/- on sale of residential house property.”

2.

The appeal of the assessee is filed late causing delay of 250 days. Assessee has submitted an application of

10.

Therefore, aggrieved with that order, assessee is in appeal before us on the solitary grounds.

11.

The learned Authorized Representative vehemently referred to the documents placed at page no.13 to 79 of the Paper Book which is a purchase agreement of the new property. He submitted that for the purpose of section 54 of the Act purchase date of the property is required to be seen. He submitted that an agreement to sale was made by the assessee for property under construction. However, the possession was given later on and share certificate was also issued on 27th March, 2007. He further stated that as the possession of the property was granted later on, that date should be considered for the purpose of date of purchase of the property. He further referred to page no.8 of the agreement to show that the payment was to be made in installments during the construction period. He therefore, submitted that assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 54 of the Act. He submitted that the learned CIT (A) was also incorrect in stating that additional evidences submitted by the assessee are not admitted.

12.

The learned Departmental Representative supported the orders of the lower authorities.

13.

We have carefully considered the rival contention and perused the orders of the lower authorities. The short question in this appeal is whether the assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 54 of the Act or not and what

14.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 20.09.2022.

More judgments on Section 54

All 1,745 judgments and leading authorities on Section 54 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →