Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH KOLKATA
Before: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi
Assessment Year: 2013-14 ITO, ITD (Exemption)…....…………….....……………....………....Appellant vs. Gujrati Relief Society, Kolkata...........................................…..…..... Respondent 28B, Dr. Rajendra Road, Bhawanipore, Kol-20. [PAN: AABAG0660J] Appearances by: Shri A. Kundu, CIT-DR, appeared on behalf of the appellant. Shri Miraj D. Shah, AR, appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : August 27, 2024 Date of pronouncing the order : August 28, 2024 आदेश / ORDER संजय गग�, �या�यक सद�य �वारा / Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member: The present appeal has been preferred by the revenue against the order dated 07.12.2023 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’).
The revenue in this appeal has taken the following grounds of appeal: “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in allowing the assessee's appeal for deleting the disallowance made u/s 143(3) on account of exemption u/s 11. (1A) of the Act to the tune of Rs.7,57,96,828/ - despite the facts that the procurement of new capital asset for claiming benefit u/s 11{A) was not made within the relevant F. Y 2012-13 and also did not set apart any fund either under Explanation 2 to section 11/1) or under section 1l(2).
2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred by allowing the assessee's appeal deleting the disallowance made u/s 143(3) on account of exemption u/s 11 (1A) of the Act, of Rs.7,57,96,828/- wherein the Ld. CIT(A) had ignored section l1(A) that exemption on capital gains is available under this section when net consideration is invested in new capital asset within the relevant financial year thereby CBDT's circular No. 883 dated 24.09.1975 has been ignored.
3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred by allowing the assessee's appeal deleting the disallowance made u/s 143(3) on account of exemption u/s 11 (1A) of the Act, of Rs. 7,57,96,828/- despite the facts that the during the relevant period assessee had received the sale consideration of the property but failed to invest the same within the end of the relevant accounting year i.e. 31.03.2013.
That further ground or grounds of appeal
may be submitted on or before the date of hearing.”
3. The sole issue involved in this appeal is relating to the exemption claimed u/s 11(1A) of the Act by the assessee on investment of the amount in capital asset received from sale of property held under trust.
4. The Assessing Officer had denied the claim of exemption u/s 11 of the Act on the amount received as consideration on sale of property to the assessee-trust on the ground that the assessee had not set apart of the said amount by way of investment in FDR in the same financial year in which the said amount was received.
5. However, before the ld. CIT(A), it was explained that though the amount, in question, was received in various instalments as advance against the sale of property, however, the sale deed was executed only on 18.03.2013, i.e. at the fag end of the financial year. Further, the cheque for the final payment of Rs.14,00,000/- got bounced on 20.03.2013 and subsequently amount was credit through cheque on 26.03.2013. The amount in question was immediately invested in the FDR at the beginning of the next financial year on 05.04.2013 as per collective decision of the members of the trust. The ld. CIT(A) considering the above submission that there was reasonable justification for a small delay in depositing the amount in the FDR, held that the denial of the deduction on account of small delay, which has been explained by the assessee, was not justified. He, accordingly, allowed the appeal of the assessee.
6. After considering the rival submissions of the ld. representatives of the both the parties, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A). In this case, though initially some instalments were received but the same were as advances against the sale of property and the conveyance deed was not executed. The conveyance deed was executed at the fag end of the financial year. The amount received as advance though, was deposited in the saving bank account, however, the same was not used for any other purposes and at the execution of the conveyance deed of the property, the amount was immediately deposited in the fixed deposits. Hence, it cannot be said that the amount received against sale of property was not set apart to be used for acquiring capital asset. Under the circumstances, we do not find any merit in the present appeal of the revenue and the same is accordingly dismissed.
In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed.