ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1), HYDERABAD vs. STOUVANT PITTIE, HYDERABAD

The Revenue raises the following twin substantive grounds in the instant appeal:

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.