MIHIR MADHAVRAO SURYAWANSHI,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 313/PUN/2017Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 December 2019AY 2013-143 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 deduction under Section 54F should be reckoned from the date of possession of the new residential house. Since the assessee took possession within two years of the sale of the old property, the deduction is allowable.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed deduction under Section 54F for long-term capital gains from selling a property. The Assessing Officer denied the deduction because the purchase of the new flat predated the sale of the old property by more than one year.

What were the issues?

Whether the purchase of a new residential house for claiming deduction under Section 54F is to be considered from the date of agreement or the date of possession, and if the assessee is entitled to deduction when possession is taken within two years of the sale.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 54F

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, PUNE

Before: SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI & SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI

For Appellant: Shri M.R. Shirude
For Respondent: Shri S.P. Walimbe

PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM :

This appeal by the assessee against the order dated 31-10-2016 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Pune [„CIT(A)‟] for assessment year 2013-14.

2.

The only issue to be decided is as to whether the CIT(A) justified in confirming the order of Assessing Officer in denying the deduction u/s. 54F of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the case.

2 ITA No.313/PUN/2017, A.Y. 2013-14

3.

Heard both parties and perused the materials available on record. The assessee is an individual and is a medical practitioner. The assessee has shown Long Term Capital Gain of Rs.66,35,931/- and claimed deduction u/s. 54F of the Act. According to the AO, the assessee sold property in Plot No. 173, Mahatma Housing Society, Kothrud, Pune vide surrender deed dated 10-09-2012 and purchased a flat in Lavasa Corporation vide agreement of purchase deed dated 22-04-2010. The AO opined, in order to claim deduction u/s. 54F of the Act the assessee has to make investments in purchasing or constructing residential house one year before or two years after the date on which the transfer took place or within a period of three years after the date of transfer, respectively. We note that the Assessing Officer has taken the date of 22-04-2010 as purchase and held the assessee is not entitled to claim deduction as it is not the one year before the date of sale of property i.e. 10-09-2012.

4.

The contention of Shri M.R. Shirude, the ld. AR is that the assessee has paid substantial amounts for purchase of flat in Lavasa Corporation to an extent of Rs.54,97,746/- from 12-07-2012 to 06-11-2013 which is more than 50% of the sale consideration of new residential house and got possession on 03-08-2013 and it is well within two years after the date on which transfer took place. The ld. AR placed reliance on the decision of Hon‟ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Smt. Beena K. Jain reported in 75 Taxman 145 (Bom.) and submitted that the Mumbai Benches of Tribunal in the case of Bastimal K. Jain following the decision of Hon‟ble High Court of Bombay held the claim of deduction u/s. 54F of the Act is to be reckoned from the date of handing over of the possession of flat by the builder. In such circumstances, we find the assessee transferred his property on 10-09-2012 and got possession of new residential house on

3 ITA No.313/PUN/2017, A.Y. 2013-14

03-08-2013 which clearly shows that the assessee made investments within two years after the date of transfer of old property. Thereby in our opinion the assessee is entitled to claim deduction u/s. 54F of the Act and impugned order of the CIT(A) is not justified and it is set aside. Thus, only ground raised by the assessee is allowed.

5.

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 16th December, 2019.

Sd/- Sd/- (Anil Chaturvedi) (S.S. Viswanethra Ravi) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ऩुणे / Pune; ददनाांक / Dated : 16th December, 2019 RK आदेश की प्रनिलऱपप अग्रेपषि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अऩीऱाथी / The Appellant. 1. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent. 2. आयकर आयुक्त (अऩीऱ) / The CIT(A)-1, Pune 3. 4. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Pune ववभागीय प्रतततनधध, आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण, “ए” बेंच, 5. ऩुणे / DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. गार्ड फ़ाइऱ / Guard File. 6. //सत्यावऩत प्रतत// True copy // आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER,

तनजी सधचव / Private Secretary, आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण, ऩुणे / ITAT, Pune

More judgments on Section 54F

All 2,628 judgments and leading authorities on Section 54F →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →