ASST CIT CIR 2, THANE vs. RAMAKANT M KADAM, BHAYANDER

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4514/MUM/2014Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 April 2018AY 2008-093 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored both issues to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination. This was done following a Supreme Court decision that remitted a similar case for de novo consideration.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed deduction under Section 54F for long-term capital gains, which was disallowed by tax authorities for not depositing unutilized funds in the capital gains account scheme. The assessee also claimed interest income deduction.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee fulfilled the conditions for Section 54F deduction, and the allowability of interest income deduction.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 54F,Section 57(iii),Section 36(1)(iii)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” Bench, Mumbai

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Sharma
For Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari
Hearing: 5.4.2018Pronounced: 5.4.2018

O R D E R Per B.R. Baskaran (AM) :-

The appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 28.4.2014 passed by the learned CIT(A)-2, Thane and it relates to A.Y. 2008- 09. Grounds urged by the assessee give rise to following two issues :-

(a) Deduction claimed u/s. 54F of the I.T. Act. (b) Interest income claimed u/s. 57(iii) and 36(1)(iii) of the Act.

2.

We have heard the parties and perused the record. The assessee had claimed exemption u/s. 54F of the Act against long term capital gains declared by it. The said claim was disallowed by the tax authorities for the reason that the assessee did not deposit unutilized fund in capital gains account scheme as per requirements of section 54F(4) of the Act.

3.

Learned AR submitted that an identical issue came before Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Xavier J. Pulikkal and Hon’ble Kerala High Court has upheld an identical view taken by the tax authorities. However, when the matter reached Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Xavier J. Pulikkal Vs. DCIT (2016) 73 taxamnn.com 34 has 2 Shri Ramakant M. Kadam restored the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to consider the issue denova without being influenced by any observations made by Hon'ble High Court. The Learned AR submitted that Hon'ble Bombay High Court has also taken the same view as was taken by Hon'ble High Court of Kerala. Since, Hon'ble Supreme Court has restored the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer, the learned AR prayed that this issue may also be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for deciding the same afresh in accordance with the law.

4.

Learned DR strongly objected to the plea of the assessee and submitted that the issue under consideration is decided in favour of the Revenue by Hon'ble High Court of Bombay. When it was pointed that Hon'ble Supreme Court has restored the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer on an identical issue, learned DR did not object to restoring the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer.

5.

After hearing rival submissions, following the decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Xavier J. Pulikkal (supra), we set aside the order passed by the learned CIT(A) and restore the same to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to examine the issue afresh in accordance with the law after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

6.

Next issue relates to deduction of interest claimed by the assessee. Since, we have restored the main issue to the file of the Assessing Officer, we prefer to restore this issue also to his file for examining it afresh.

7.

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is treated as allowed. Order has been pronounced in the Court on 5.4.2018.

More judgments on Section 54F

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →