ANNIRUTHA RAGHUVEER,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-1(1), CHENNAI

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’
यायपीठ, चे ई।
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI

ी एबी टी. वक
, ाियक सद एवं
एवं
एवं
एवं

ी मनोज कुमार अवाल, लेखा सद के सम

BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRIMANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No. 2239/Chny/2024
िनधा रणवष /Assessment Year: 2014-15

Annirutha Raghuveer,
No.18A/3, 2nd Floor,
1st Main Road,
R.A. Puram,
Chennai – 600 028. v.
Income Tax Officer, Non-
Corporate Ward -1(1),
Chennai.
[PAN: AGVPR-4048-L]

(अपीलाथ/Appellant)

(यथ/Respondent)

अपीलाथ क ओर से/ Appellant by :
Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate
यथ क ओर से /Respondent by :
Smt. D. Babitha, JCIT
सुनवाईकतारीख/Date of Hearing
:
22.01.2025
घोषणाकतारीख /Date of Pronouncement
:
26.02.2025

आदेश / O R D E R
PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM:

This appeal preferred by the assessee trust against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre
(NFAC), Delhi, (hereinafter in short "the Ld.CIT(A)”) dated 09.08.2024 for assessment year (in short “AY") 2014-15. 2. The only issue in erred in confirming the Rs.1,58,37,000/- with r of the Income-tax Act depositing the residue s the stipulated period u/s 3. The brief facts are on 07.05.2015 for AY 2
the return (RoI) was se led to pass of an asses disallowed Rs.1,58,37,0
sum in capital gain acc
RoI u/s. 139(1) of the by order dated 31.12.2
dated 26.11.2019 [in IT the AO to verify whet
(UDS) or residential pr
Tribunal (supra), the A residential property and the Act on the ground t
[by purchase of new res date for filing of RoI u/s ITA N
:: 2 ::

this appeal of the assessee is that e disallowance made by the AO t respect to the disallowance of deduc t, 1961 (hereinafter in short “the sale proceeds in capital gain scheme s. 139(1) of the Act.
e that the assessee filed her return o
2014-15 declaring income of Rs.3,62
elected for scrutiny u/s. 143(3) of ssment order dated 30.12.2016 by 000/-, since, the assessee didn’t d count scheme before the due date
Act. On appeal the Ld.CIT(A) confi
018 which was set aside by this Tr
TA No. 566/Chny/2019] and restore her the sold out property was un roperty. While giving effect to th
AO confirmed that the sold out p d thereafter he again denied exemp hat assessee didn’t utilize/reinvest t sidential property (at Neelankarai)]
s. 139(1) of the Act i.e. 31.07.2014

Nos.2239/Chny/2024
[AY 2014-15]
AnniruthaRaghuveer t the Ld.CIT(A) to the tune of ction u/s. 54(2) e Act”) for not e account within of income (RoI)
2,240/-. Later, the Act, which y which the AO eposit the said of filing of the rmed the same ibunal by order ed to the file of ndivided shares he order of the property was a ption u/s. 54 of the capital gain before the due
4; and in such a scenario, according to Rs.1,58,37,000/- in the of filing RoI u/s. 139(1) same on 11.08.2014 of after the due date on Capital Gains (LTCG) cl has confirmed the actio earlier order of his pred
4. We have heard bo that assessee has sold consideration of Rs.2, claimed LTCG of Rs.
received, the assessee i.e. Rs.1.08 crores [i.e.
14.08.2014]. The asses construction of new res total cost of Rs.2,00, exemption claimed u/s.
utilize/invest the capita
Neelankarai within the 31.07.2014; and had 2014. Therefore, the A ITA N
:: 3 ::

o him, the assessee ought to h e capital gain account scheme befor
) of the Act; and since, the assessee f Rs.90 lakhs, & on 14.08.2014 Rs.
31.07.2014, the AO disallowed t aimed by the assessee. On appeal on of AO in the second round by r ecessor. Aggrieved, the assessee is oth the parties and perused the rec d her residential flat on 23.01.20
24,80,000/- and from such a tr
1,56,91,000/-. Out of the sal deposited under the capital gain a Rs.90 lakhs on 11.08.2014 and Rs.
ssee is also seen to have invested th idential house at Neelankarai which ,75,384/-. However, the AO ha
54 of the Act on the ground that l gain for purchase of new residen due date u/s. 139(1) of the Act i.e belatedly deposited it only in 11t
AO denied exemption claimed u/s.

Nos.2239/Chny/2024
[AY 2014-15]
AnniruthaRaghuveer have deposited re the due date e deposited the 18.50 lakhs viz the Long Term
, the Ld.CIT(A) reproducing the s before us.
cords. We note
14 for a sale- ransaction, she e-consideration account scheme
.18.50 lakhs on he said sum for was built for a as denied the assessee didn’t tial property at e. on or before th& 14thAugust,
. 54 of the Act which impugned action fulfilled all the substan claiming the deduction,
“capital gain scheme ac the delay of 14 days in cannot come in the way substantive conditions property within the peri of depositing the same cannot be a fetter for d regard, it is noted that the case of ACIT vs Jus
AY 2014-15 dated 30.01
deposit the amount in lapse on the part of the of the Act cannot be den
8. We have heard the available on record. In Chennai Bench of the T because the assessee h of the Act barring the d account" as prescribed was also placed in MotilalPadampatSugarm held that 'thus there is n said that everyone is pr there is no such Maxim kn disputed that the asse section 54 of the Act ba scheme account". More entire sale proceeds in ITA N
:: 4 ::

cannot be countenanced because th ntive conditions prescribed u/s. 54
, barring the deposit of the sale p ccount” by few days i.e. 14 days. A n depositing the sum in the “capita y of the claim, where the assessee by investing the sum for buildin od allowed by law; and the breach o can be termed as technical/venial denying the deduction u/s. 54 of th similar issue had come up before stice T.S. Arunachalam – ITA No. 24
1.2018, wherein the Tribunal held th capital gain account scheme was o e assessee and therefore, the benef nied to the assessee by holding as u e rival submissions and carefully perused the the decision of ShriMadhuvan Prasad Vs. ITO
Tribunal has allowed the benefit of section 54
had fulfilled all the conditions prescribed under deposit of the sale proceeds in the "capital ga d under section 54(2) of the Act. In that decisi the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in th millCo.Ltd. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh &Ors whe no presumption that every person knows the law resumed to know the law, but that is not a corre nown to the law. In the given case before us al essee had not fulfilled the conditions prescr arring the deposit of the sale proceeds in the "
over, the facts reveal that the assessee had de n his savings bank account maintained with n

Nos.2239/Chny/2024
[AY 2014-15]
AnniruthaRaghuveer he assessee has of the Act for proceeds in the According to us, al gain scheme”
has fulfilled the g a residential of the condition l breach, which he Act. In this this Tribunal in 455/Chny/2017
hat the delay to only a technical fit of section 54
under:
e materials
O, supra the 4 of the Act r section 54
ain scheme ion reliance he case of erein it was w. It is often ct statement lso, it is not ribed under "capital gain eposited the nationalized bank out of which he h had made is that the as nationalized bank he h account'. Considering th the Hon'ble Apex Court small technical lapse o denied. Section 54 o interpretation has to be The assessee has proce but has only made a sm should not disentitle t
Order pronounced (मनोज कुमार अवाल
(MANOJ KUMAR AGGA
लेखासदय/ACCOUNTANT
चेई/Chennai,
दनांक/Dated: 26th Februar
JPV, Sr.PS
ITA N
:: 5 ::

has constructed his house. The only small lacun ssessee though had placed the entire sale proc has not transferred the same in the ·capital g hese facts of the case and the decisions of the T t cited above, we are of the considered view t of the assessee, the benefit of section 54 sho of the Act is a beneficial provision and a e made as far as possible for giving benefit to th eded to comply with the provisions of section 5
mall technical breach which we are of the cons the assessee tor the benefit of section 54 o direct the learned Assessing Officer to grant the the assessee and accordingly delete the additio r sustained by the learned Commissioner of I ssee has constructed the new res om the date of transfer of origi res in the “capital gain scheme a laim of deduction u/s. 54 of the Ac essee by respectfully following the ustice T.S. Arunachalam (Supra), de by the AO.
eal filed by the assessee is allowed.
d on the 26th day of February, 2025,
ल)
ARWAL)
MEMBER (एबी टी.
(ABY T. VA
याियकसदय/JUDI ry, 2025. Nos.2239/Chny/2024
[AY 2014-15]
AnniruthaRaghuveer na assessee ceeds in the ain scheme
Tribunal and that for this ould not be a beneficial he assessee.
54 of the Act sidered view of the Act.
e benefit of on made by Income Tax sidential house inal asset and ccount” with a ct couldn’t have decision of this and direct the in Chennai.
/-
वक
)
ARKEY)
CIAL MEMBER

आदेशक ितिलिपअेिषत/Copy

ITA N
:: 6 ::

to:
nai / Madurai / Salem / Coimbatore.

Nos.2239/Chny/2024
[AY 2014-15]
AnniruthaRaghuveer