IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “G” BENCH : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.No.1822/Mum./2024 Assessment Year 2013-2014 Shri Sandeep S. Mittal, 105, Augustus, Raheja Acropolis-II, B-Wing, Deonar Pada Road, Near Talcom Factory, Chembur, Mumbai – 400 088. Maharashtra. PAN ACPPM8418H vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 27 (3)(1), IT Office, Vasi Railway Station Bldg., Navi Mumbai. Maharashtra. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Jose Pulikkoden For Revenue : Shri Laxmi Kanth, Sr. AR Date of Hearing : 08.07.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 11.07.2024 2 ITA.No.1822/Mum./2024 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. This assessee’s appeal, for assessment year 2013-2014, arises against National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short the “NFAC”] Delhi’s Din and Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/ 1060913571(1) dated 14.02.2024, in proceedings u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”). Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. Coming to the assessee’s sole substantive grievance canvassed in the instant appeal challenging correctness of both the lower authorities action disallowing his sec.54 deduction claim amounting to Rs.3,58,68,411/- in the course of assessment dated 15.12.2015; we note that the CIT(A)-NFAC’s detailed discussion to this effect reads as under : 3 ITA.No.1822/Mum./2024 4 ITA.No.1822/Mum./2024 5 ITA.No.1822/Mum./2024 3. Learned counsel vehemently argued during the course of hearing that both the learned lower authorities have wrongly rejected the assessee’s impugned sec.54 deduction claim despite the fact that he had placed on record the allotment letter to this effect which proves substantial compliance of all the relevant conditions therein at his behest. Learned counsel’s case accordingly is that the impugned sec.54 deduction disallowance is not sustainable in law once the assessee re-invests his capital gains as is the case before us. 4. Faced with this situation, we sought to know about the final completion status of the residential house in question vis-à-vis the project concerned. The reply received from assessee’s side is in “negative” only; on both counts. Meaning thereby, that the assessee 6 ITA.No.1822/Mum./2024 has not been able to prove the clinching conditions of having purchased a residential house by way of re-investment of capital gains before one year or after two years of the date of transfer of the capital asset or having constructed the same within three years from the said date; as the case may be. The assessee’s plea that he could not be penalized for the action of the real estate developer also fails to evoke our concurrence since sec.54 deduction is allowable only if a residential house is purchased or constructed in the foregoing terms and not otherwise. We thus uphold the learned CIT(A)-NFAC’s findings rejecting the assessee’s sec.54F deduction claim in very terms. Ordered accordingly. 5. This assessee’s appeal is dismissed in above terms. Order pronounced in the open Court on 11.07.2024 Sd/- Sd/- [AMARJIT SINGH] [SATBEER SINGH GODARA] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumba, Dated 11th July, 2024 VBP/- 7 ITA.No.1822/Mum./2024 Copy to 1. The applicant 2. The respondent 3. The Pr. CIT, Mumbai concerned 4. D.R. ITAT, “G” Bench, Pune. 5. Guard File. //By Order// //True Copy // Sr. Private Secretary, ITAT, Pune Benches, Pune.