ITO, CHENNAI V. Rettanai Govindan Munuswamy, CHENNAI

ITA 1085/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8850 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-07-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 04-07-2016
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 22-04-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUPRIGOPAL IRS
• Assessee Lawyers: R VISWANATHAN
• Keywords: Capital asset; Assessment record
• Section: 54F; 54

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI . , . , BEFORE SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBE R AND SHRI. G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./I.T.A. NO. 1085/MDS/2016 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-2012 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORPORATE WARD 8(2) ERSTWHILE ITO, BUSINESS WARD IV(2) CHENNAI 600 034. VS. SHRI. RETTANAI GOVINDAN MUNUSWAMY, NO.17, GANDHI ROAD, JAGANNATHAN NAGAR, ARUMBAKKAM, CHENNAI 600 106. [PAN AAOPM 7255M] ( / APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) ! ' # / APPELLANT BY : SHRI. SUPRIGOPAL, IRS, JCIT. $% ! ' # /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI. R. VISWANATHAN, C.A. & ' ' ( /DATE OF HEARING : 04-07-2016 ) ' ' ( /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 15-07-2016 / O R D E R PER G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AG AINST ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-9, CHENNAI IN ITA NO.43/CIT(A)-9/2014-15, DT 15.02.2016 FOR THE ASSES SMENT YEAR 2011- 2012 PASSED U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 147 AND 250 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREIN AFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT). ITA NO.1085/MDS/2016. :- 2 -: 2. THE DEPARTMENT HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 2.2. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FAC T THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NEITHER INVESTED THE CAPITAL GAIN ARISING OUT OF THE TRANSFER OF THE LONG TERM CAPITA L ASSET FOR CONSTRUCTION/ PURCHASE OF NEW RESIDENTIAL PROPE RTY, WITHIN THE STIPULATED TIME NOR DEPOSITED THE UNUTIL IZED AMOUNT IN ANY BANK ACCOUNT FRAMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CAPITAL GAIN ACCOUNT SCHEME, 1988 ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE FOR FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME U/S. 139(1). 2.3. THE CIT(A) FAILED TO TAKE NOTE THAT SEC. 54(2) IS VERY SPECIFIC THAT DEPOSIT OF UNUTILIZED CAPITAL GA IN IN SPECIFIED BANK ACCOUNTS SHOULD BE MADE IN ANY CASE NOT LATER THAN THE DUE DATE APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR FURNISHING THE RETURN OF INCOME UN DER SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 139. 2.4. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN GIVING DIRECTION TO GRANT DEDUCTION U/S.54F WHEN THE CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AN UNREGISTERED ONE AND HENCE THE GENUINENESS OF THE CLAIM IS NOT VERIFIABL E BY THE AO. 2.5. HAVING REGARD TO THE HON'BLE ITAT COCHIN IN TH E CASE OF OF ITO WARD-I, KANNUR VS.DR.K.T.BIJU VIDE I TA NO.768/COCH/ 2013 DT.21.11.2012 SIMILARLY HELD THAT TO CLAIM DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54 OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE HAS TO MAKE INVESTMENT WITHIN THE DUE DATE OF FILING THE RETURN ULS, 139(1) OF THE I.T. ACT WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DO SO. THUS, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 54 OF THE I.T. ACT, THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE AO IN MAKING DISALLOWANCE ON THE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S.54F . 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE I S AN INDIVIDUAL AND DERIVING INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND FILED R ETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 ON 26.07.2011 DISCLOSI NG TOTAL INCOME OF >3,52,577/-. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE LD. ASSESSING OFFI CER HAVING REASONS TO BELIEVE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCLOSED TO INCO ME TAX SALE OF PROPERTY ITA NO.1085/MDS/2016. :- 3 -: TRANSACTION HELD IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2010-2011 > 70,00,000/- AND NO INCOME FROM CAPITAL GAINS WAS OFFERED TAXATION WE RE INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AND ISSUED NOTICE U/S.148 OF THE ACT. I N RESPONSE TO NOTICE, THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF ASSESSEE APPEA RED FROM TIME TO TIME AND SUBMITTED DETAILS. THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESEN TATIVE EXPLAINED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED A RESIDENTIAL PLO T THROUGH SALE CONSIDERATION AND INVESTMENT BEING MORE THAN THE AC TUAL SALE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED HENCE CLAIMED EXEMPTION U/S. 54F OF THE ACT AND SUPPORTED WITH COPY OF SALE DEED AND PURCHASE DEED. THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD THE VACANT LAND ON 23.09.2010 AND STARTED CONS TRUCTING RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY ON A VACANT LAND OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE AFT ER OBTAINING PERMISSION FROM THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION. THE LD . ASSESSING OFFICER ON VERIFICATION OF THE DETAILS FORWARDED THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAS NOT UTILIZED THE NET SALE CONSIDERATION FOR PURCHASE OF NEW ASSET NO R DEPOSITED IN CAPITAL GAINS ACCOUNT SCHEME BEFORE DUE DATE OF FILING OF R ETURN OF INCOME U/S.139(1) OF THE ACT AND RELIED ON THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 54F OF THE ACT AND CONCLUDE THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT INVEST ED IN CAPITAL GAINS ACCOUNTS SCHEME BEFORE DUE DATE THEREFORE NOT ELIG IBLE FOR EXEMPTION U/S.54F OF THE ACT AND ASSESSED LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS TO TAX AND PASSED THE ORDER U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 147 DATED 26.06. 2014. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE COM MISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). ITA NO.1085/MDS/2016. :- 4 -: 4. IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE LD. AUTHORISED RE PRESENTATIVE ARGUED THE GROUNDS ON VALIDITY OF RE-ASSESSMENT PRO CEEDINGS AND THE ACTION OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER IN DENYING THE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S.54F OF THE ACT ON INVESTMENT IN RESIDENTIAL PRO PERTY. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS, JUDICIAL DECISIONS AND THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. ASS ESSING OFFICER ON RE- ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND UPHELD THE ORDER OF LD. ASSESSING OFFICER ON VALIDITY OF RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. FURTHER, TH E LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ON THE DISPUTED ISSUE RELIED O N THE SUBSTANTIVE EVIDENCE THAT THE PROPERTY WAS CONSTRUCTED WITHIN T HE STIPULATED TIME LIMIT. THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED AGREEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION AND RELIED ON JUDICIAL DECISIONS ALON GWITH SUBMISSIONS, THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) CONSIDERED THE DOCUMENTS AS FRESH EVIDENCE AND CALLED FOR THE REMAND REPORT OF ASSES SING OFFICER AND THE SAME WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY BY REPORT DATED 07.01.2016. CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS AND THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER, THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IS OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE SUBSEQUENT TO SALE OF LAND HAS INVESTED T HE SALE CONSIDERATION BY ENTERING INTO AGREEMENT WITH BUILDER M/S. VISHNU SAI ENTERPRISES FOR CONSTRUCTION OF RESIDENTIAL HOUSE AT THE COST OF >6 4,77,382/-. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) FOUND THE DATE OF AGREEMENT IS 15.02.2011 AND THE CONSTRUCTION WAS COMPLETED BEFO RE 16.09.2012 AND ITA NO.1085/MDS/2016. :- 5 -: HOUSE PROPERTY WAS ASSESSED TO COMPUTE PROPERTY TAX ON 30.07.2012. THE ASSESSEE HAS COMPLIED THE CONDITION U/S.54F OF THE ACT BY ENTERING INTO CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT FOR RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY ON 15.02.2011 BASED ON APPROVED PLAN AFTER SALE OF LAND ON 23.09.2010 IRRE SPECTIVE OF THE TIME LIMIT FOR INVESTMENT OF NET SALE CONSIDERATION IN NEW RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY BEING 22.09.2013. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T AX (APPEALS) FOUND THAT THE CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT IS UNREGISTERED AN D THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT INVESTED IN CAPITAL GAINS ACCOUNT SCHEME BUT COMPL IED THE STIPULATED CONDITION U/S.54F ON CONSTRUCTION OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY AND RELIED ON JURISDICTIONAL TRIBUNAL DECISION IN THE CASE OF K.S. NARASIMHAN (HUF) IN ITA NO.166/MAD/2010 AND PASSED THE ORDER THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION U/S.54F OF THE ACT AND ALLOWED THE ASSESS EE APPEAL. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X (APPEALS), THE REVENUE HAS ASSAILED AN APPEAL BEFORE TRIBUNAL. 5. BEFORE US, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ARG UED THE GROUNDS AND RELIED ON THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. ASSES SING OFFICER THAT ASSESSEE HAS ENTERED INTO UNREGISTERED CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT WITH THE BUILDER AND ALSO VIOLATED THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 54 F OF THE ACT BY NOT INVESTING THE NET CONSIDERATION IN THE CAPITAL GAIN S ACCOUNT SCHEME BEFORE DUE DATE OF RETURN U/S.139(1) OF THE ACT. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING THE ASSESSEE A PPEAL INSPITE OF NON ITA NO.1085/MDS/2016. :- 6 -: COMPLIANCE OF CONDITION OF CAPITAL GAIN ACCOUNTS SC HEME AND PRAYED FOR SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( APPEALS) AND RESTORE THE ORDER OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER. 6. CONTRA, THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE RELIED ON THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AND DOCUMENTAR Y EVIDENCE AND JUDICIAL DECISIONS OF CO-ORDINATE BENCH AND HIGH CO URTS AND OPPOSED TO THE GROUNDS OF THE REVENUE. 7. WE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIA L ON RECORD AND JUDICIAL DECISIONS CITED. THE ONLY CRUX OF THE DISPUTED ISSUE DEALT, AS THE ASSESSEE HAS CONSTRUCTED RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY B UT NOT COMPLIED THE CONDITIONS OF INVESTMENT OF NET CONSIDERATION IN TH E CAPITAL GAINS ACCOUNT SCHEME BEFORE DUE DATE U/S. 139(1) OF THE ACT. WE PERUSED THE DETAILED FACTS OF SALE AND CONSTRUCTION OF RESIDENTIAL PROPE RTY AS PER THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS. THE DETAILED HISTORY OF THE PR OPERTY ARE ILLUSTRATED HEREUNDER:- DATE OF SALE OF THE PROPERTY 23.09.2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR CHARGEABILITY OF CAPITAL GAINS 2011-12 THE NET CONSIDERATION TO BE DEPOSITED INTO THE CAPITAL GAINS ACCOUNT SCHEME- BEFORE DUE DATE OF FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME U/S.139(1) OF THE ACT. 31.07.2011 ITA NO.1085/MDS/2016. :- 7 -: DUE DATE OF FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME U/S.139(4) OF THE ACT 31.03.2013 DATE OF CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT 15.02.2011 DATE OF PAYMENT OF LICENCE FEE TO THE CORPORATION 07.03.2011 DATE OF APPROVAL/PERMISSION OF THE PLAN FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW HOUSE BY CHENNAI CORPORATION 06.04.2011 DATE OF WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE CONNECTION 16.08.2012 PROPERTY TAX ASSESSMENT BY CORPORATION 30.07.2012 CONSIDERING THE EVENTS AND PROVISIONS OF LAW, WE A RE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS COMPLIED THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 5 4F OF THE ACT BY ENTERING INTO CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT OF HOUSE PROPE RTY AND COMPLETED THE CONSTRUCTION WITHIN THREE YEARS FROM DATE OF SALE O F ORIGINAL PROPERTY. FURTHER, THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN T HE CASE OF A.C. SHYAM SUNDAR VS. JCIT IN ITA NO.2279/MDS/2015, DATED 06.0 5.2016 HAS HELD AS 7. WE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MA TERIAL ON RECORD AND JUDICIAL DECISIONS CITED. THE LD. AUTHOR ISED REPRESENTATIVE CONTENTION THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN E MPLOYEE AND DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN APPLICABLE FOR THE ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 IS 31.07.2011. THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD THE P ROPERTY AND INVESTED IN PURCHASE OF RESIDENTIAL FLAT AS PER BU ILDER AGREEMENT ENTERED ON 03.02.2011. THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID >30,00 ,000/- BEFORE 31.07.2011 AS PER THE EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY B UILDER IN LETTER DATED 18.02.2014 AND REMAINING AMOUNT PAID IN THREE INSTALMENTS BEFORE 31.03.2012 WHICH IS NOT DISPUTED BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY. THE CRUX OF THE DISPUTED ISSU E ARISE BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE DE POSITED THE AMOUNT IN THE CAPITAL GAIN ACCOUNTS SCHEME BEFORE 139(1) OF THE ITA NO.1085/MDS/2016. :- 8 -: ACT, THEREFORE THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RESTRI CTED EXEMPTION U/SEC. 54F AND DENIED THE BALANCE. ON PERUSAL OF THE SEC. 54F(1) OF THE ACT THE EXEMPTION IS ALLOWED TO THE A SSESSEE AS UNDER:- 54F. (1) [SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECTION (4), WHERE, IN THE CASE OF AN ASSESSEE BEING AN INDIVIDUAL OR A HINDU UNDIVIDED FAMILY], THE CAPITAL GAIN ARISES FROM THE TRANSFER OF ANY LO NG-TERM CAPITAL ASSET, NOT BEING A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE (HEREAFTER IN THIS SECTION REFERRED TO AS THE ORIGINAL ASSET), AND THE ASSESSEE HAS, WI THIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR BEFORE OR [TWO YEARS] AFTER THE DATE ON WHICH THE TRANSFER TOOK PLACE PURCHASED, OR HAS WITHIN A PERIOD OF THREE YE ARS AFTER THAT DATE [ CONSTRUCTED, A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE ] (HEREAFTER IN THIS SECTION REFERRED TO AS THE NEW ASSET), THE CAPITAL GAIN SHA LL BE DEALT WITH IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING PROVISIONS OF THIS SE CTION, THAT IS TO SAY, (A) IF THE COST OF THE NEW ASSET IS NOT LESS THAN THE N ET CONSIDERATION IN RESPECT OF THE ORIGINAL ASSET, THE WHOLE OF SUCH CAPITAL GAIN SHALL NOT BE CHARGED UNDER SEC TION 45 ; (B) IF THE COST OF THE NEW ASSET IS LESS THAN THE NET CONSIDERATION IN RESPECT OF THE ORIGINAL ASSET, SO MUCH OF THE CAPITAL GAIN AS BEARS TO THE WHOLE OF THE CAPIT AL GAIN THE SAME PROPORTION AS THE COST OF THE NEW ASSET BE ARS TO THE NET CONSIDERATION, SHALL NOT BE CHARGED UNDER S ECTION 45 : [ PROVIDED THAT NOTHING CONTAINED IN THIS SUB-SECTION SHALL APPLY WHERE (A) THE ASSESSEE, (I) OWNS MORE THAN ONE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE, OTHER THA N THE NEW ASSET, ON THE DATE OF TRANSFER OF THE ORIGINAL ASSE T; OR (II) PURCHASES ANY RESIDENTIAL HOUSE, OTHER THAN TH E NEW ASSET, WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE DATE O F TRANSFER OF THE ORIGINAL ASSET; OR (III) CONSTRUCTS ANY RESIDENTIAL HOUSE, OTHER THAN THE NEW ASSET, WITHIN A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS AFTER THE DAT E OF TRANSFER OF THE ORIGINAL ASSET; AND ITA NO.1085/MDS/2016. :- 9 -: (B) THE INCOME FROM SUCH RESIDENTIAL HOUSE, OTHER T HAN THE ONE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE OWNED ON THE DATE OF TRANSFER OF THE ORIGINAL ASSET, IS CHARGEABLE UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PRO PERTY.] CONSIDERING THE DATE OF INVESTMENTS AND PROVISIONS OF LAWS AS UNDER:- (I) DATE OF TRANSFER OF VACANT LAND : 02.10.2010. (II) THE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN BY ASSESSEE : 03.11.2011. (III) DUE DATE OF FILING RETURN FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 : 31.07.2011. (IV) DATE OF BUILDER AGREEMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSE PROPERTY : 03.02.2011. (V) DUE DATE OF FILING OF BELATED RETURN : 31.03.2013. U/SEC. 139(4) OF THE ACT CONSIDERING THE ABOVE FACTS AND PROVISIONS OF LAW, THE ASSESSEE HAS INVESTED TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF >66,64,457/- BE FORE DUE DATE U/SEC. 139(4) OF THE ACT BEING 31.03.2013. THE INVE STMENT IN RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY HAS TO BE WITHIN THREE YEARS FROM THE DATE OF TRANSFER OF VACANT LAND ON 02.10.2010. THE ASSE SSEE HAS NOT DEPOSITED IN CAPITAL GAIN ACCOUNTS SCHEME >36,00,00 0/- BEFORE 139(1) OF THE ACT BUT COMPLIED WITH THE CONDITIONS U/S.54F(1) OF THE ACT ON PURCHASING AND CONSTRUCTION OF RESIDENTI AL FLAT WITHIN THREE YEARS FROM THE TRANSFER OF ORIGINAL ASSET WHI CH IS NOT DISPUTED BY THE REVENUE. THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 54 F OF THE ACT ARE BENEFICIAL AND ARE TO BE CONSIDERED LIBERALLY F OR REASONABLE BONAFIDE CAUSE BUT INVESTMENT IN RESIDENTIAL PROPER TY IS MANDATORY WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS PROVED WITH SUBSTA NTIAL EVIDENCE BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. PRIME FACIE THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN COMPLIED THOU GH INVESTMENT WAS MADE SUBSEQUENTLY BUT BEFORE EXTENDE D DUE DATE U/S.139(4) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAS DIRE CT INVESTMENT IN HOUSE PROPERTY AND THEREFORE NOT OPTED CAPITAL GAIN ACCOUNT SCHEME. THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE FURTHER SUBSTANTIATED ARGUMENTS WITH JUDICIAL DECISION OF DELHI HIGH COU RT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. R.L. SOOD 245 ITR 727 (DEL) WERE THE DAT E OF AGREEMENT TO PURCHASE SHOULD BE TAKEN AS THE DATE O F PURCHASE. ON APPLYING THE RATIO TO CURRENT CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ASSESSEE ENTERED INTO AGREEMENT WITH BUILDER FOR UNDIVIDED SHARE OF LAND AND CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT ON 03.02.2011 WHICH IS VERY MUCH BEFORE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 139(4) OF THE ACT. IN T HE CASE OF JAGTAR SINGH CHAWLA OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COUR T IN ITA NO.71 OF 2012, DATED 20.03.2013 THE ASSESSEE HAS P AID ITA NO.1085/MDS/2016. :- 10 -: SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT FOR PURCHASE OF RESIDENTIAL PROP ERTY BEFORE THE EXTENDED DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN AND THE A SSESSEE WAS ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION AND NOT LIABLE TO PAY ANY CA PITAL GAIN TAX. CONSIDERING THE FACTUAL ASPECTS, GENUINESS OF TRAN SACTIONS AND BENEFICIAL AND LIBERAL ASPECTS OF THE PROVISIONS AN D THE JUDICIAL DECISIONS RELIED BY THE ASSESSEE. WE ARE OF THE OP INION THAT ASSESSEE COMPLIED THE CONDITIONS AND IS ELIGIBLE FO R EXEMPTION U/S.54F OF THE ACT. WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF COMMI SSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER TO GRANT EXEMPTION U/S.54F OF THE ACT ON THE REMAINING CONST RUCTION COST WHICH WAS INVESTED IN THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY BEFO RE DUE DATE U/S.139(4) OF THE ACT AND ALLOW THE GROUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE. WE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH DEC ISION, DISMISS THE GROUNDS OF THE REVENUE. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IN ITA NO.1085/MDS/2016 IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON FRIDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JULY , 2016 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . ! ' ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) $ %& / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( ' . ( ) ) (G. PAVAN KUMAR) * %& / JUDICIAL MEMBER *& / CHENNAI + / DATED:15THJULY, 2016. KV , ' $'./ 0/' / COPY TO: 1 . ! / APPELLANT 2. $% ! / RESPONDENT 3. 1' () / CIT(A) 4. 1' / CIT 5. /4 5 $'6 / DR 6. 5 7 8 & / GF