I.T.O. WARD -1(1), RAIPUR (CG) vs. SMT SHEELA CHAKOLE, RAIPUR

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR

BEFORE S/SHRI N.S SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER

ITA No.394/Rpr/2014 Assessment Year : 2011-2012

ITO Ward-1(1), Raipur Vs. Sheela Chakole, Deshbandhu Press Complex, Ramasagarpara, Raipur PAN/GIR No. APPPC 6726 F (Appellant) .. ( Respondent)

Revenue by : Mrs. Sheetal Verma, DR Assessee by : None

Date of Hearing : 18/01/ 2018 Date of Pronouncement : 19 /01/ 2018

O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, JM This is an appeal filed by the revenue against the order of the CIT(A)-

Raipur, dated 27.10.2014 for the assessment year 20110-2012.

“Whether in law and on facts & circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in allowing the deduction u/s. 54F amounting to Rs.47,45,000/- notwithstanding the fact that the deposit in the capital gain account was made beyond the time limit.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual

deriving income from interest and other income. The return of income was

filed on 27.02.2013 declaring income of Rs.3,07,900/-. Subsequently, the

assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the I.T. Act 1961 on 24.02.2014,

determining the total income at Rs.51,68,400/-. The Assessing Officer

noticed that the assessee has sold a land located at Deopuri. Raipur at a

sale consideration of Rs.75,08,000/- vide registered sale deed dated

5.1.2011. The assessee filed her return of income belatedly on 27.02.2013,

beyond the due date of filing the return of income 139(1) of the Act. In the

return of income, the assessee has claimed exemption u/s 54F amounting to

Rs.47,45,000/- claiming it to be deposited in capital gain account. The

Assessing Officer opined that the date of deposit into a specified Capital

Gain Account was 08.11,2011 which was beyond the due date of filing of

return u/s 139(1). In response to Assessing officer’s query, the assessee

submitted a letter dated 20.1.2014, the contents of which are reproduced at

page 2 of the order. The assessee has claimed that out of total sale

consideration, she has purchased an agricultural land on 11.3.2011 at a

consideration of Rs.52,865/- and invested Rs.15,97,374/- for purchase of a

residential plot at Raipur on 28.3.2011 and that has invested around

Rs.14,00,000/- paid to contractor for construction of house. After

considering the submission of the assessee, the Assessing officer is of the

opinion that the assessee irrespective of the fact that the amount was

invested in the capital gain account, but same should have been invested

before the due date of filing the return of income u/s.139(1) of the Act.

Since the assessee has deposited this amount in the capital gain account in

Union Bank of India, Raipur on 8.11.2011, the Assessing officer has denied

exemption u/s.54F and assessed the total income at Rs.51,68,400/- by

order dated 24.2.2014 u/s 143(3) of the Act.

the matter in appeal before the CIT(A).

before the Assessing Officer and submitted that the assessee is entitled for

claiming exemption u/s. 54F of the Act. Ld A.R. also emphasized that the

assessee has complied all the conditions required u/s.54F of the Act.

Whereas the CIT(A) has considered the findings of the Assessing Officer and

submission of the assessee at para 4.5 of the order and finally decided the

disputed issue relying on the judicial decisions and directed the Assessing

Officer for deletion of addition.

before the Tribunal.

54F of the Act irrespective of the fact that the assessee has not deposited

the consideration in the capital gain scheme account within the due date

u/s.139(1) of the Act and prayed for allowing the appeal of the revenue.

dispose of the appeal of the revenue exparte qua the respondent assessee

after hearing ld D.R. and on the basis of material available on record.

authorities and materials available on record. Prima facie, the dispute arisen

with respect to deposit of sale consideration in capital gains account before

the due date of filing the return of income u/s.139(1) of the Act. The

provisions of section 54F is very clear in respect of claim of exemption and

the assessee having satisfied the conditions has claimed exemption but the

fact remains that the Assessing officer has not doubted the deposit of capital

gain nor the sale consideration but only disputed that the amount has been

deposited beyond the due date u/s.139(1) of the Act. We are of the opinion

that the provisions of capital gains of investment in house property have to

be considered liberally and the fact remains that the assessee reinvested the

amount in residential property. We support our decision though the

assessee has deposited the capital gain after due date, but the property has

to be completed within a period of three years from the date of transfer and

the Assessing officer has not disputed on this. Though there is delay in

depositing the capital gain, the assessee has completed the residential

property. Considering the apparent fact and materials on record, we are of

the opinion that the CIT(A) has correctly dealt on the issue and passed a

reasoned order, which we decline to interfere.

Sd/- sd/- (N.S Saini) (Pavan Kumar Gadale) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIALMEMBER Raipur; Dated 19 /01/2018 B.K.Parida, SPS Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant : ITO Ward-1(1), Raipur 2. The Respondent. Sheela Chakole, Deshbandhu Press Complex, Ramasagarpara, Raipur 3. The CIT(A)- Raipur 4. Pr.CIT-Raipur 5. DR, ITAT, Raipur 6. Guard file. //True Copy//

BY ORDER,

SR.PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, Raipur