ITO Ward 5, Tuticorin V. G.Venkatasubramanian, Tuticorin

ITA 1743/CHNY/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5061 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-06-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 14-07-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIJAYA PRABHAJCITD R
• Assessee Lawyers: R VIJAYARAGHAVAN

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH : CHENNAI , , BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI S.JAYARAMAN , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NO.1743/CHNY/2017 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD NO.5, 6 TH ,NORTH COTTON ROAD, TUTICORIN.628 001 VS. SHRI G.VENKATASUBRAMANIAN , NO.2,4 TH STREET, TOOVEYPURAM, TUTICORIN-628 001. [PAN AGKPM 7088 G ] ( / APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : MS.VIJAYA PRABHA,JCIT,D.R !' /RESPONDENT BY : MR.R.VIJAYA RAGHAVAN,ADVOCATE # $ %& / DATE OF HEARING : 27 - 0 6 - 201 8 '( %& / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27 - 0 6 - 201 8 !' / O R D E R PER GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-1, MADURAI IN ITA ITA NO.1743/CHNY/2014 :- 2 -: NO.0113/2016-17 DATED 28.04.2017 FOR THE ASSESSME NT YEAR 2013- 14. 2. IN THIS APPEAL, THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLL OWING GROUNDS:- 1. THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS OPPOSED TO LAW, ON TH E FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 2. THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING THE APPEAL OF T HE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD INVESTED IN NEW RESIDE NTIAL PROPERTY WITHIN THE DUE DATE U/S.139(4) FOR CLAIMING EXEMPTI ON U/S.54 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 3. THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE SEEN THAT SECTION 54(2) STATES THAT IF THE AMOUNT OF CAPITAL GAINS WHICH IS NOT APPROPRIATED B Y THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS PURCHASE OF NEW ASSET MADE WITHIN ONE YEAR BEFORE THE DATE ON WHICH TRANSFER OF THE ORIGINAL ASSET TOOK P LACE, OR WHICH IS NOT UTILIZED BY HIM FOR PURCHASE OR CONSTRUCTION OF THE NEW ASSET BEFORE DATE OF FURNISHING OF THE RETURN OF INCOME S HALL BE DEPOSITED BY HIM IN THE CAPITAL GAIN ACCOUNT SCHEME AND SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DEPOSITED THE UNUTILIZED CAPITAL GAINS IN C APITAL GAINS ACCOUNT SCHEME WITHIN THE DUE DATE ALLOWED UNDER SE CTION 139(1), THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED TO CLAIM EXEMPTION U/S .54 AND HENCE THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE SUSTAINED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 3. MS.VIJAYA PRABHA, REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE, AND MR.R.VIJAYARAGHAVAN REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO.1743/CHNY/2014 :- 3 -: 4. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LD. D.R THAT THE ISSUE IN THE APPEAL WAS AGAINST THE ACTION OF THE L D.CIT(A) IN HOLDING THAT THE TIME LIMIT FOR DEPOSITING THE UNUTILIZED P ORTION OF THE CAPITAL GAINS IN THE CAPITAL GAINS ACCOUNT SCHEME WAS THE T IME PROVIDED IN PROVISIONS OF THE SECTION 139(4) OF THE ACT. 5. IN REPLY, THE LD.A.R SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE W AS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CONSTRUCTED A NEW RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY AFTER THE SALE OF HIS HOUSE PROPERTY AND THE CONSTRUCTION WAS DONE WI THIN THE TIME PROVIDED IN THE PROVISIONS OF THE SECTION 139(4) OF THE ACT. IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT THERE IS NO ISSUE OF DEPOSIT BY THE ASSESSEE IN CAPITAL GAINS ACCOUNT SCHEME. AT THIS POINT, IT WAS REQUEST ED THAT THE FACTS MAY BE PLACED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. HOWEVER, NEITHE R SIDE WAS WILLING TO PLACE THE FACTS BEFORE THE BENCH. CONSEQUENTLY, WE HAVE PERUSED THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) AND ADJUDICATED THE ISSU E. 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS GIVE N HIS FINDINGS IN PARAGRAPH NOS. 4 & 4.1 OF HIS ORDER AND THIS FINDIN GS OF THE LD.CIT(A) HAS NEITHER BEEN SHOWN TO BE ERRONEOUS, NOR BEING S HOWN TO BE PERVERSE ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE. CONSEQUENTLY, W E FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS). I N THESE ITA NO.1743/CHNY/2014 :- 4 -: CIRCUMSTANCES, THE FINDINGS OF THE LD.CIT(A) ON THI S ISSUE STANDS CONFIRMED. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 27 TH JUNE, 2018, AT CHENNAI. SD/ - SD/ - ( ) (S. JAYARAMAN) # !$ /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( ) (GEORGE MATHAN) % !$ / JUDICIAL MEMBER ) $ / CHENNAI * / DATED: 27 TH JUNE, 2018. K S SUNDARAM + !%,- . -% / COPY TO: 1 . / APPELLANT 3. # /% () / CIT(A) 5. -23 !%4 / DR 2. !' / RESPONDENT 4. # /% / CIT 6. 35 6$ / GF