Satyabhama Nivrutti Bhosale, Pune V. Income-tax Officer,

ITA 1028/PUN/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1297 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-08-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 16-05-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJESH DAMOR SHRI RAJESH DAMOR
• Keywords: Period of limitation; Cost of acquisition
• Section: 143(3); 54F; 54; 2; 139

Judgement Text

- IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH SMC, PUNE , , BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, J UDICIAL M EMBER . / ITA NO. 1 028 /PN/201 4 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 200 7 - 0 8 SATYABHAMA NIVRUTTI BHOSALE, C/O D.R. BARVE & CO., CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS, 461/1, SADASHIV PETH, / TILAK ROAD, P UNE 4110 3 0 . / APPELLANT PAN: A GOPB1256B VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 11 ( 4 ), PUNE . / RESPONDENT / APPELLANT BY : S HRI NIKHIL PATHAK / RESPOND ENT BY : SHRI RAJESH DAMOR / RESPOND ENT BY : SHRI RAJESH DAMOR / DATE OF HEARING : 17 .07.2015 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 12 .0 8 .2015 / ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, J M : TH I S APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) - I , PUNE , DATED 29 . 11 .20 1 3 REL ATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 7 - 0 8 AGAINST ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT , 1961 . 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RA ISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: - 1 . THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE REJECTION OF THE APPELLANTS CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S. 54F ON THE GROUND THAT UTILIZATION OF SALE CONSIDERATION WAS NOT WITHIN THE DUE DATE OF RETURN AS U/S 139(1) BUT WITHIN THE DUE DATE OF FILING RETURN AS U/S. 139(4). 139(1) BUT WITHIN THE DUE DATE OF FILING RETURN AS U/S. 139(4). 2 . THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) FELL IN ERROR OF LAW IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE APPELLANT/ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR THE EXEMPTION U/S.54F ITA NO . 1 028 /PN/20 1 4 SATYABHAMA NIVRUTTI BHOSALE 2 IF THE SALE CONSIDERATION IS U TILIZED FOR INVESTMENT IN NEW RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY WITHIN THE DUE DATE STIPULATED UNDER SECTION 139(4) OF THE ACT. 3 . THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN IGNORING THE DECISIONS OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURTS AND THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL WHICH WERE BROUGHT TO HIS NOTICE. 4 . THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND, MODIFY ANY GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 3. THE ISSUE ARISING IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS IN RELATION TO THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE ACT. 4. IN THE FACTS OF THE PR ESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAD DECLARED INCOME FROM LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON ACCOUNT OF TRANSFER OF PORTION OF LAND IN MAGARPATTA CITY. THE ASSESSEE HAD OFFERED SUM OF RS. 13,13,427/ - AS CAPITAL GAIN ON TRANSFER OF THE AFORESAID LAND, AFTER CLAIMING INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION OF SAID PORTION OF LAND. ADMITTEDLY, THERE IS NO DISPUTE IN RESPECT OF THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME FROM LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED THAT IT HAD MADE INVESTMENT IN A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY AND WAS ELIGIBLE F OR THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE SECTION 54F OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE THE SAID INVESTMENT IN THE PURCHASE OF NEW PROPERTY AFTER THE DUE DATE OF FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME AND THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY THE EXEMPTION CLAIMED UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE ACT SHOULD NOT BE DISALLOWED. IN REPLY, THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT IT HAD PURCHASED THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE AND HAD ALSO DEPOSITED AMOUNT IN CAPITAL GAIN ACCOUNT, BUT THERE WAS DELAY WHICH IS TO BE CONDONED IN VI EW OF VARIOUS CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTING THE SAID SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE NOTED THAT THE INVESTMENT IN THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE WAS MADE ON 31.03.2008 WHICH WAS BEYOND THE DATE OF FURNISHING THE RETURN OF INCOME UNDER SECTION 139(1) OF THE ACT. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT DEPOSITED THE AMOUNT IN ANY CAPITAL GAIN ACCOUNT WITH ANY BANK AND IN THE ABSENCE OF THE SAME, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT T HE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UN DER SECTION 54F OF THE ACT AT 13,13,427/ - . ITA NO . 1 028 /PN/20 1 4 SATYABHAMA NIVRUTTI BHOSALE 3 5. THE CIT(A) REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IT HAD MADE THE INVESTMENT FOR PURCHASE OF RESIDENTIAL HOUSE PROPERTY ON 24.03.2008 I.E. MUCH BEFORE THE DUE DATE PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 139(4) OF THE ACT. T HE CIT(A) HELD THAT THE PLAIN READING OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 54F OF THE ACT MAKES IT CLEAR THAT THE DEPOSIT IN THE SPECIFIED CAPITAL GAIN ACCOUNT HAD TO BE MADE NOT LATER THAN DUE DATE APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR FURNISHING THE RETURN OF I NCOME UNDER SECTION 139(1) OF THE ACT, WHICH WAS 31.07.2007 . SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT UTILIZED THE AMOUNT O R DEPOSITED THE SAME IN SPECIFIED CAPITAL GAIN ACCOUNT ON OR BEFORE 31.07.2007, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO AVAIL THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAD DEPOSITED THE AMOUNT IN THE SPECIFIED CAPITAL GAIN ACCOUNT ON 29.09.2007 WHICH WAS BEYOND THE LIMIT PRESCRIBED UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE ACT I.E. THE DUE DATE OF FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME AND HENCE, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO CLAIM THE SAID DEDUCTION. 6. THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 7. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT THE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE ORDER OF HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. MS. JAGRITI AGGARWAL REPORTED IN (2011) 339 ITR 610 (P&H) AND ALSO PUNE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ACIT VS. SMT. ASHA ASHOK BOOB IN ITA NO.69/PN/2014 , RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08, ORDER DATE D 20.05.2015 . 8. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. 9. AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND ON PERUS AL OF RECORD , T HE ONLY ISSUE ARISING IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS IN RELATION TO T HE ELIGIBILITY OF CLAIM OF DEDUCTION ITA NO . 1 028 /PN/20 1 4 SATYABHAMA NIVRUTTI BHOSALE 4 UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE ACT . THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION HAD DECLARED INCOME FROM LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF PORTION OF LAND IN MAGARPATTA CITY , AGAINST WHICH IT HAD CLAIMED THE DEDUCTION U NDER SECTION 54F OF THE ACT. THE CASE OF AUTHORITIES BELOW WAS THAT FOR AVAILING THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE ACT, THE INVESTMENT IN THE SPECIFIED CAPITAL GAIN ACCOUNT OR PURCHASE OF THE RESIDENTIAL UNIT SHOULD BE MADE BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FIL ING THE RETURN OF INCOME UNDER SECTION 139(1) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSMENT UNDER CONSIDERATION I.E. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 AND CONSEQUENTLY, THE SAID INVESTMENT HAD TO BE MADE BEFORE 31.07.2007. THE ASSESSEE INITIALLY HAD MADE DEPOSIT IN THE SPECIFIED CAP ITAL ACCOUNT ON 20.09.2007 AND THEREAFTER, HAD MADE INVESTMENT FOR THE PURCHASE OF RESIDENTIAL HOUSE PROPERTY ON 24.03.2008. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW WAS THAT TO LOOK INTO THE TIME LIMIT OF FURNISHING THE RETURN OF INCOME RES ORT IS TO BE MADE T O SUB - SECTION (4) OF SECTION 139 OF THE ACT AND NOT UNDER SECTION 139(1) OF THE ACT. AS PER SECTION 139(4) OF THE ACT, THE DUE DATE FOR FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME IS UP TO 31.03.2008 AND SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE THE INVESTMENT IN TH E CAPITAL GAIN ACCOUNT IN TIME AND ALSO MADE THE INVESTMENT FOR PURCHASE OF RESIDENTIAL HOUSE PROPERTY ON 24.0 3 .2008, THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO THE AFORESAID DEDUCTION CLAIMED UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE ACT. 10. SIMILAR ISSUE OF TIME LIMIT TO BE APPLIE D FOR AN ASSESSEE TO BE ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE ACT, WHICH IS PARAMETRIA TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 54F OF THE ACT HAD ARISEN BEFORE THE HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. MS. JAGRITI AGGARWAL (SUPRA) , WHEREIN IT WAS HELD AS UNDER: - 10. HAVING HEARD LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT SUB - S . (4) OF S. 139 OF THE ACT IS, IN FACT, A PROVISO TO SUB - S . (1) OF S. 139 OF THE ACT. SEC. 139 OF THE ACT FIXES THE DIFFERENT DATES FOR FILING THE RETUR NS FOR DIFFERENT ASSESSEES. IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE AS THE RESPONDENT, IT IS 31ST DAY OF JULY OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IN TERMS OF CL . (C) OF THE EXPLN. 2 TO SUB - S . (1) OF S. 139 OF THE ACT, WHEREAS SUB - S . (4) OF S. 139 PROVIDES FOR EXTENSION IN PERIOD OF DU E DATE IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES. IT READS AS UNDER: ITA NO . 1 028 /PN/20 1 4 SATYABHAMA NIVRUTTI BHOSALE 5 '(4) ANY PERSON WHO HAS NOT FURNISHED A RETURN WITHIN THE TIME ALLOWED TO HIM UNDER SUB - S . (1), OR WITHIN THE TIME ALLOWED UNDER A NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SUB - S . (1) OF S. 142, MAY FURNISH THE RETURN FOR ANY PREVIOUS YEAR AT ANY TIME BEFORE THE EXPIRY OF ONE YEAR FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR OR BEFORE THE COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT WHICHEVER IS EARLIER: PROVIDED THAT WHERE THE RETURN RELATES TO A PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEA R COMMENCING ON THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 1988 OR ANY EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR, THE REFERENCE TO ONE YEAR AFORESAID SHALL BE CONSTRUED AS A REFERENCE TO TWO YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR.' 11. A READING OF THE AFORESAID SUB - SECTION WOULD S HOW THAT IF A PERSON HAS NOT FURNISHED THE RETURN OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR WITHIN THE TIME ALLOWED UNDER SUB - S . (1) I.E., BEFORE 31ST DAY OF JULY OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR, THE ASSESSEE CAN FILE RETURN BEFORE THE EXPIRY OF ONE YEAR FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT AS SESSMENT YEAR. 12. THE SALE OF THE ASSET HAVING TAKEN PLACE ON 13TH JAN., 2006, FALLING IN THE PREVIOUS (SIC - ASSESSMENT) YEAR 2006 - 07, THE RETURN COULD BE FILED BEFORE THE END OF RELEVANT ASST. YR. 2007 - 08 (SIC - 2006 - 07) I.E. 31ST MARCH, 2007. THUS, SUB - S . (4) OF S. 139 PROVIDES EXTENDED PERIOD OF LIMITATION AS AN EXCEPTION TO SUB - S . (1) OF S. 139 OF THE ACT. SUB - S . (4) IS IN RELATION TO THE TIME ALLOWED TO AN ASSESSEE UNDER SUB - S . (1) TO FILE RETURN. THEREFORE, SUCH PROVISION IS NOT AN INDEPENDENT PROVISIO N, BUT RELATES TO TIME CONTEMPLATED UNDER SUB - S . (1) OF S. 139. THEREFORE, SUCH SUB - S . (4) HAS TO BE READ ALONG WITH SUB - S . (1). SIMILAR IS THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE DIVISION BENCH OF KARNATAKA AND GAUHATI HIGH COURTS IN FATIMA BAI AND RAJESH KUMAR JALAN CASES (SUPRA) RESPECTIVELY. 1 1 . THE SAID PROPOSITION WAS APPLIED BY THE PUNE BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN ACIT VS. SMT. ASHA ASHOK BOOB (SUPRA) AND IT WAS HELD AS UNDER: - VS. SMT. ASHA ASHOK BOOB (SUPRA) AND IT WAS HELD AS UNDER: - 13. NOW COMING TO THE AMOUNT OF DEDUCTION TO BE ALLOWED U/S.54F OF THE ACT, WE FIND IT IS AN AD MITTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DEPOSITED THE SALE PROCEEDS IN THE SPECIFIED BANK ACCOUNT TILL 31 - 03 - 2009. THE ASSESSEE ONLY MADE PAYMENT OF RS.55,40,625/ - TILL 31 - 03 - 2009 TOWARDS PURCHASE OF FLAT. IN THE CASE DECIDED BY THE HON'BLE PUNJAB AND HARY ANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MS. JAGRITY AGGARWAL (SUPRA) THE ASSESSEE SOLD HER HOUSE PROPERTY FOR RS.45 LAKHS ON JANUARY 13, 2006, AND HAVING PURCHASED A NEW RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY ON JANUARY 2, 2007, CLAIMED DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54 OF THE INCOME - TAX AC T, 1961. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DECLINED THE CLAIM HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO DEPOSIT THE AMOUNT IN THE CAPITAL GAINS ACCOUNT SCHEME AND ALSO FAILED TO PURCHASE HOUSE PROPERTY BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE COMMISSIONER (AP PEALS) HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED A NEW RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY ON 2 ND JANUARY, 2007, AND THE DUE DATE ACCORDING TO SECTION 139(4) WAS MARCH 31 2007, AND, THUS, THE ASSESSEE HAD COMPLIED WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 54 OF THE ACT. THIS ORDER WAS A FFIRMED BY THE TRIBUNAL. ON FURTHER APPEAL BY THE REVENUE, THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HELD AS UNDER (SHORT NOTES) : THE ASSESSEE SOLD HER HOUSE PROPERTY FOR RS.45 LAKHS ON JANUARY 13, 2006, AND HAVING PURCHASED A NEW RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY ON JANUARY 2, 200 7, CLAIMED DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54 OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DECLINED THE CLAIM HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO DEPOSIT THE AMOUNT IN THE CAPITAL GAINS ACCOUNT SCHEME AND ALSO FAILED TO PURCHASE HOUSE PROPERTY BEFORE THE DU E DATE OF FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED A NEW RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY ON JANUARY 2, 2007, AND THE DUE DATE ACCORDING TO SECTION 139(4) WAS MARCH 31, 2007, AND, THUS, THE ASSESSEE HAD COMPLIED WIT H THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 54 OF THE ACT. THIS ORDER WAS AFFIRMED BY THE TRIBUNAL. ON APPEAL : ITA NO . 1 028 /PN/20 1 4 SATYABHAMA NIVRUTTI BHOSALE 6 HELD, DISMISSING THE APPEAL, THAT THE SALE OF THE ASSET HAD TAKEN PLACE ON JANUARY 13, 2006, FAILING IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR 2006 - 07, THE RETURN COULD BE FILED BEFORE THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08, I.E. MARCH 31, 2007. THUS, SUB - SECTION (4) OF SECTION 139 PROVIDES THE EXTENDED PERIOD OF LIMITATION AS AN EXCEPTION TO SUB - SECTION (1) OF SECTION 139 OF THE ACT. SUB - SECTION (4) WAS IN RELATION TO THE TIME ALLOWED TO AN ASSESSEE UNDER SUB - SECTION (1) TO FILE THE RETURN. THEREFORE, SUCH PROVISION WAS NOT AN INDEPENDENT PROVISION, BUT RELATES TO THE TIME CONTEMPLATED UNDER SUB - SECTION (1) OF SECTION 139. THEREFORE, SUB - SECTION (4) HAD TO BE READ AL ONG WITH SUB - SECTION (1). THEREFORE, THE DUE DATE FOR FURNISHING THE RETURN OF INCOME ACCORDING TO SECTION 139(1) OF THE ACT WAS SUBJECT TO THE EXTENDED PERIOD PROVIDED UNDER SUB - SECTION (4) OF SECTION 139 OF THE ACT. 14. WE FIND FOLLOWING THE ABOVE DEC ISIONS, THE PUNE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ASHOK DEOKISHAN BHUTADA (SUPRA) HAS ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WHERE THE INVESTMENTS WERE MADE WITHIN THE TIME LIMIT UP TO WHICH THE RETURN CAN BE FILED U/S. 139(4). SINCE, IN THE INSTANT CASE ADMITTEDLY THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE PAYMENT OF RS.55,40,625/ - TILL 31 - 03 - 2009 WHICH IS THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN U/S. 139(4), THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE DECISIONS CITED (SUPRA) WE HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO CLAIM DEDUCTION U/S .54F ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF RS.55,40,625/ - AS AGAINST RS.100,03,125/ - ALLOWED BY THE LD. CIT(A). AS REGARDS THE RELIANCE PLACED BY THE LD. DR ON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE KERALA HIGH IN THE CASE OF V.R. DESAI (SUPRA) IS CONCERNED THE SAME IS NOT APPLICAB LE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. IN THAT CASE IT WAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION U/S. 54F BECAUSE HE NEITHER DEPOSITED THE SALE PROCEEDS IN THE SPECIFIED BANK ACCOUNT BEFORE THE DUE DATE NOR UTILIZED THE SAME FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOUSE IN TERMS OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 54F. HOWEVER, IN THE INSTANT CASE THE ASSESSEE HAS UTILIZED A PART OF CAPITAL GAIN TOWARDS PURCHASE OF FLAT WHICH IS NOT IN DISPUTE. THEREFORE, THE SAID DECISION IS DISTINGUISHABLE AND NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION U/S. 54F TO THE EXTENT OF RS.55,40,625/ - ONLY. WE HOLD AND DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. 1 2 . THE ISSUE ARISING IN THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE US IS IDENTICAL TO THE ISSUE BEFORE THE HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. MS. JAGRITI AGGARWAL (SUPRA) , WHEREIN THOUGH THE DEDUCTION WAS CLAIMED UNDER SECTION 54 OF THE ACT, WE FIND THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 54F OF THE ACT ARE PARAMETRIA TO THE SAID SECTION 54 OF THE ACT. FURTHER , THE TRIBUNAL IN ACIT VS. SMT. ASHA ASHOK BOOB (SUPRA) HAD APPLIED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 54F OF THE ACT TO ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE. IN THE F ACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE , THE DUE DATE OF FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME AS PER SECTION 139(4) OF THE ACT IS 31.03.2008 AND SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE THE INVESTMENT FOR THE PURCHASE OF RESIDENTIAL HOUSE PROPERTY ON 24.03.2008 I.E. WITHIN THE DUE DATE PROVID ED UNDER SECTION 139(4) OF THE ACT , THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ITA NO . 1 028 /PN/20 1 4 SATYABHAMA NIVRUTTI BHOSALE 7 DIRECTED THAT THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE ACT BE ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE. 1 3 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEA L OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER P RONOUNCED ON THIS 12 TH DAY OF AUGUST , 201 5 . SD/ - ( SUSHMA CHOWLA ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE ; DATED : 12 TH AUGUST , 2015 . GCVSR / COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT ; 2. / THE RESPONDENT; 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - I , PUNE ; 4. / THE CIT - I , PUNE ; 5. , , - / DR SMC , ITAT, PUNE; / DR SMC , ITAT, PUNE; 6. / GUARD FILE . / BY ORDER , // TRUE COPY // / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY , / ITAT, PUNE