Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCHES “A” : HYDERABAD
Before: SHRI S.S.GODARA & SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU
This Revenue’s appeal for AY.2013-14 arises from the CIT(A)-3, Hyderabad’s order dated 20-02-2019 passed in case No.0079 / CIT(A)-3 / 2016-17, involving proceedings u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, ‘the Act’]. Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
The Revenue raises the following twin substantive grounds in the instant appeal:
“1.The Ld.CIT(A) erred both in law and on facts of the case.
2.The Ld.CIT(A) erred in allowing deduction u/s 54F of Rs.26,57,53,178/-. 3.The Ld.CIT(A) erred in considering the deduction u/s 54F for the flats situated in all nine independent blocks, whereas deduction is allowed only for one block vide Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of KC Kaushik Vs. PB Rane, Fifth ITO (1990) 185 ITR 499(Bom). 4.The facts of the cited cases do not apply to the instant case of the assessee. 5.The Ld.CIT(A) erred in treating non-refundable deposit of Rs.3 Crores as taxable under the head capital Gain. 6.Any other ground(s) that may be urged at the time of hearing”.
We next note that the CIT(A)’s detailed discussion deciding both the foregoing twin issues in assessee’s favour reads as under:
Learned departmental representative vehemently contended during the course of hearing that the issue as to whether an assessee could be held entitled for re-investment of the capital gains arising from transfer of a capital asset or assets; as the case may be, in different residential projects as a deduction u/s.54F of the Act is no more res integra in light of the tribunal’s Special Bench decision in Sushila M.Jhaveri case (supra). And that we ought to adopt stricter construction principle only whilst deciding a deduction claim in light of Commissioner of Customs Vs. Dilip Kumar (2018) 9 SCC 1 (FB)(SC).
We find no merit in Revenue’s instant former argument since the hon'ble jurisdictional high court (supra) has already decided the very issue in assessee’s favour and against the department thereby overruling the Special Bench’s decision. No contrary opinion has come either from hon'ble apex court or a larger bench; as the case may be. We therefore affirm the CIT(A)’s detailed discussion holding the assessee as eligible for 54F deduction in issue.
We now proceed to deal with the latter issue of taxability of assessee’s interest through deposit of Rs.3 crores. It has come on record that the Ld.CIT(A) has followed the tribunal’s order (supra) that such non-refundable advances have to be assessed as capital gains since derived from transfer of the corresponding capital asset only. We thus uphold the CIT(A)’s foregoing findings qua the instant latter issue as well. No other ground has been pressed before us.
This Revenue’s appeal is dismissed in above terms.
Order pronounced in the open court on 6th January, 2022