SMT. CHHAYABEN MAHENDRABHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 360/AHD/2016Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 August 2017AY 2012-132 pages

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

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the requirement of keeping the investment amount in a separate account is not applicable if the investment is made within the prescribed time limit. It also clarified that the time limit for investment includes the extended time under Section 139(4).

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction under Section 54F for investment in a new residential property. The assessee had invested within the prescribed time limit but had not kept the amount in a separate account before the due date for filing the income tax return.

What were the issues?

Whether the benefit of Section 54F deduction is available when investment is made within the time limit but the amount is not kept in a separate account before the due date of filing the return.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)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, AHMEDABAD SMC BENCH, AHMEDABAD

I.T.A. No.360/Ahd/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Page 1 of 2 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AHMEDABAD SMC BENCH, AHMEDABAD [Coram: Pramod Kumar AM] I.T.A. No.360/Ahd/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Chhayaben Mahendrabhai Patel, .......…………...........Appellant 8, Ramyakunj Society, Naroda, Ahmedabad. [PAN : AKIPP 3233 C] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Wad 7(2)(1), Ahmedabad. ............................Respondent Appearances by: None for the appellant Ila Parmar for the respondent Date of concluding the hearing: 24.08.2017 Date of pronouncing the order: 28.08.2017 O R D E R

1.

This appeal, filed by the assessee, is directed against learned CIT(A)’s order dated 5th September 2015, for the assessment year 2012-13. 2. Grievance of the appellant is that “the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the disallowance by the learned Assessing Officer of statutory deduction under section 54F of the Act, amounting to Rs.15,00,000/-“ 3. I have heard the leaned Departmental Representative, and perused the records. 4. I have noted that the Assessing Officer has declined section 54F benefit to the assessee, in computation of taxable capital gains, even though the investment was made in the new residential property within prescribed limit, as the amount was not kept in a separate account before the time limit for filing of income tax return under section 139(1) expired. This objection is not valid for two reasons – first, because, as held by

I.T.A. No.360/Ahd/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Page 2 of 2 Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. K. Ramachandra Rao [(2015) 120 DTR 72 (Kar)], in a case in which investment is made in the new residential property within prescribed time limit, this requirement of keeping the money in specified account does not come into play; and – second, because, as held by Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, in the case of CIT vs. Jagriti Aggarwal [(2011) 339 ITR 610 (P&H)], time limit referred to section 54F covers time limit under section 139 (4) as well. I have noted that the authorities below have relied upon the Tribunal decision in the case of ITO vs. Rosamma Korah [(2015) 171 TTJ 692 (Cochin)] but the Tribunal did not have benefit of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court’s views in the case of K. Ramachandra Ro (supra). In the hierarchical judicial system that we have, the direct decisions of Hon’ble Courts above are to be followed by the Tribunal. I do so and uphold the the plea of the assessee. I direct the Assessing Officer to delete the impugned disallowance. 5. In the result, the appeal is allowed. Pronounced in the open court today on the 28th day of August 2017.

Sd/- Pramod Kumar (Accountant Member) Dated: Ahmedabad, the 28th day of August, 2017. PBN/* Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) DR (6) Guard File By order Assistant Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Ahmedabad benches, Ahmedabad

More judgments on Section 54F

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →