Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘ B’ BENCH : CHENNAI
Before: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY & SHRI S.JAYARAMAN
आदेश / O R D E R PER S.JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
The assessee filed this appeal against the order of the
Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Chennai in ITA
No.47/205-16/A.Y2012-13/CIT(A)-4, dated 27.06.2017 for the
assessment year 2012-13.
ITA No.2040/Chny/2017 :- 2 -:
Shri Kasi Viswanathan Ramnathan, the assessee is a salaried
individual. The assessee along with legal heirs received his share on sale of property made on 23rd December, 2011, but he received on the
consideration on 16.01.2012. The assessee acquired a land for ₹.59,95,000 on 05.03.2012 and constructed a residential property on
the same within the time stipulated under Section 54F of the Act and
claimed deduction under Section 54F in the return filed for assessment
year 2012-13. The A.O restricted the exemptions to the expenses
incurred till 31.07.2012, as the assessee failed to invest unutilized
portion in Capital Gains Deposit Scheme. Aggrieved against the order
of Ld. A.O., the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). The
learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved against that order, the
assessee filed this appeal before the Tribunal.
The Ld. A.R. submitted that assessee invested the capital
gains within the time stipulated under Section 54F of the Act. The
assessee out of abundant caution also filed his return of income within
the due date specified under Section 139(1) of the Act claiming
exemption under Section 54F of the Act including the amount which
had not been utilized before 31.07.2012. The assessee utilized the
entire sale consideration in the construction of the building within the
ITA No.2040/Chny/2017 :- 3 -:
time limit specified under Section.54F of the Act. The Ld. A.R. relied
on the following case laws:
i) Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of C.I.T Vs. Shri
K.ramachandra Rao reported in [2015] 56 taxmann.com
163(Karnataka)
ii) Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Kishore, [2012] 24 taxmann.com 11
iii) Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Venkata Dilip Kumar
[2019] 111 taxmann.com 180(Madras)
Further, the Ld. A.R. pleaded that the assessee’s appeal be allowed.
Per contra, Ld. D.R. supported the orders of the lower
authorities.
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the
material available on record. After examining the facts and case laws
relied on by the assessee, we find that mere non compliance of a
procedural requirement under Section 54(2) itself cannot stand in way
of assessee in getting benefit under Section 54, if he is, otherwise, in a
position to satisfy that mandatory requirement under Section 54(1) is
fully complied with within time limit prescribed therein. Therefore, we
direct the A.O. to allow the total investments made by the assessee
under Section 54F of the Act after satisfying whether the impugned
ITA No.2040/Chny/2017 :- 4 -:
investment was utilized for the construction of the house within the time limit specified under Section 54F of the Act.
In the result, the appeal of assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 29th May, 2020 at Chennai.
Sd/- Sd/- (धु�वु� आर.एल रे�डी) (एस जयरामन) (DUVVURU RL REDDY) (S. JAYARAMAN) �या�यक सद�य/JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद�य/Accountant Member
चे�नई/Chennai �दनांक/Dated: 29th May,2020. K S Sundaram
आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 4. आयकर आयु�त/CIT 2. ��यथ�/Respondent 5. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध/DR 3. आयकर आयु�त (अपील)/CIT(A) 6. गाड� फाईल/GF