ZAFAR IQBAL,SILIGURI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 1, SILIGURI, SILIGURI

ITA 1170/KOL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 February 2026AY 2016-201726 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee's failure to deposit sale proceeds in the Capital Gains Account Scheme and the ownership of multiple properties were valid grounds for denying the Section 54F deduction. The assessee's plea of ignorance was not accepted as a valid reason to waive statutory requirements.

What were the facts?

The assessee sold landed properties and claimed exemption under Section 54F for purchasing a new house. The Assessing Officer denied the exemption because the sale proceeds were not deposited in the Capital Gains Account Scheme before the due date and the assessee owned other properties. The CIT(A) upheld this denial.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 54F when sale proceeds are not deposited in the Capital Gains Account Scheme and the assessee owns other residential properties.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 54F,Section 139(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(3)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, KOLKATA ‘C’ BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: SHRI SONJOY SARMA & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA

PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'CIT(A)'] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act') for AY 2016-17 dated 14.05.2024. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal:

“1. For that on the facts and circumstances & legal position of the case, the order u/s 250 passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is against the principle of natural justice.

2.

For that on the facts and circumstances & legal position of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) was not justified in denying

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 54F

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →