ITO WARD 5, TUTICORIN vs. G.VENKATASUBRAMANIAN, TUTICORIN

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1743/CHNY/2017Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 June 2018AY 2013-144 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order, as the findings were neither erroneous nor perverse. The CIT(A) had correctly held that the investment was made within the due date under Section 139(4).

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order allowing exemption under Section 54. The dispute centered on whether the assessee invested in a new residential property within the due date prescribed by Section 139(4) for claiming exemption.

What were the issues?

Whether investment in a new residential property within the due date under Section 139(4) is valid for claiming exemption under Section 54, and if unutilized capital gains need to be deposited in the Capital Gains Account Scheme.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 54,Section 139(4),Section 139(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘ D’ BENCH : CHENNAI

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI S.JAYARAMAN

आदेश / O R D E R

PER GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER

1.

This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-1, Madurai in ITA

ITA No.1743/CHNY/2014 :- 2 -:

No.0113/2016-17 dated 28.04.2017 for the assessment year 2013- 14.

2.

In this appeal, the Revenue has raised the following grounds:-

1. The order of the CIT(A) is opposed to law, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case.

2. The CIT(A) has erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee on the ground that the assessee had invested in new residential property within the due date u/s.139(4) for claiming exemption u/s.54 of the Income tax Act. 3. The CIT(A) ought to have seen that section 54(2) states that if the amount of capital gains which is not appropriated by the assessee towards purchase of new asset made within one year before the date on which transfer of the original asset took place, or which is not utilized by him for purchase or construction of the new asset before date of furnishing of the return of income shall be deposited by him in the capital gain account scheme and since the assessee has not deposited the unutilized capital gains in capital gains account scheme within the due date allowed under section 139(1), the assessee is not entitled to claim exemption u/s.54 and hence the CIT(A) ought to have sustained the addition made by the Assessing officer.

3.

Ms.Vijaya Prabha, represented on behalf of the Revenue, and Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan represented on behalf of the Assessee.

ITA No.1743/CHNY/2014 :- 3 -:

4.

At the time of hearing, it was submitted by ld.D.R that the issue in the appeal was against the action of the Ld.CIT(A) in holding that the time limit for depositing the unutilized portion of the capital gains in the Capital Gains Account Scheme was the time provided in provisions of the section 139(4) of the Act.

5.

In reply, the ld.A.R submitted that the issue was that the assessee had constructed a new residential property after the sale of his house property and the construction was done within the time provided in the provisions of the section 139(4) of the Act. It was a submission that there is no issue of deposit by the assessee in Capital Gains Account Scheme. At this point, it was requested that the facts may be placed before the Tribunal. However, neither side was willing to place the facts before the Bench. Consequently, we have perused the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and adjudicated the issue.

6.

We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. It was noticed that the ld.CIT(A) has given his findings in paragraph Nos. 4 & 4.1 of his order and this findings of the ld.CIT(A) has neither been shown to be erroneous, nor being shown to be perverse on the facts of the case. Consequently, we find no reason to interfere with the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals). In these

ITA No.1743/CHNY/2014 :- 4 -: circumstances, the findings of the Ld.CIT(A) on this issue stands confirmed.

7.

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

Order pronounced on 27th June, 2018, at Chennai.

More judgments on Section 54

All 1,745 judgments and leading authorities on Section 54 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →