Smt. Sumati Sivakumar, CHENNAI V. ITO, CHENNAI

ITA 2132/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8076 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-11-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 15-07-2016
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A V SREEKANTH
• Assessee Lawyers: R M NARAYANAN
• Keywords: Capital asset; Assessment record
• Section: 54F; 54

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH : CHENNAI . . . , . . ' # $ , % &' ( [ BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI D. S. SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ] ./ I.T.A.NO. 2132/MDS/2016 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14 SMT. SUMATI SIVAKUMAR NO.2 KRISHNASWAMY AVENUE LUZ, MYLAPORE CHENNAI 600 004 VS. THE INCOME TAX O FFICER NON-CORPORATE WARD 2(4) CHENNAI [PAN AYBPS 0253 L] ( )* / APPELLANT) ( +,)* /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI R. M. NARAYANAN, CA /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI A.V. SREEKANTH, JCIT / DATE OF HEARING : 19 - 10 - 2016 ! / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10 - 11 - 2016 / O R D E R PER D.S. SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-2, CHENNA I, DATED 15.6.2016 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14. 2. ALL THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE RELATING TO THE DISAL LOWANCE OF CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE U/S 54F OF THE INCOME- TAX ACT, 1961[IN SHORT THE ACT]. ITA NO.2132/16 :- 2 -: 3. DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14, THE ASSESSEE SOLD A VACANT LAND AT BANGAL ORE ADMEASURING 2400 SQ FT FOR A CONSIDERATION OF ` 90 LAKHS TO SHRI KOTTA MAHESH AND MRS. POTLAPALLI DIVYA ON 17.9.2012 AND CLAIMED THE EXEMPTION U/S 54F TO THE EXTENT OF ` 81,76,700/-. FROM THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS, THE ASS ESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INVESTED ` 56,54,000/- FROM THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF THE PROPERTY FOR PURCHAS E OF PROPERTY IN FLAT 3B, 101, KALPATARU AURA, LAL BAHADUR SHASTRI MARG, GHATKOPAR, MUMBAI AND THE BALANCE WAS INVESTED FROM THE BANK LOAN FUN DED BY THE SBI. THE PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE LONG WIT H HIS SONMR.ANEESSH SIVAKUMAR AND HER DAUGHTER IN LAW MS. NEHA BHUJANG IN THE JOINT NAMES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE TO RESTRICT THE EXEMPTION OF CAPITA L GAINS U/S 54F AT ` 51,36,785/-(I.E THE INVESTMENT MADE FROM SALE CONSI DERATION). IN RESPONSE TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE, SHE EXPLAINED T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD THE PROPERTY FOR A SUM OF ` 90 LAKHS AND ACQUIRED A NEW PROPERTY ON 30.1.2013 I.E WITHIN TWO YEARS FROM THE DATE OF SALE OF THE PROPERTY, HENCE SHE IS ENTITLED FOR THE DEDUCTION U/S 54F OF THE ACT WHICH WAS CLAIMED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. NOT BEI NG IMPRESSED WITH THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESS ING OFFICER ALLOWED THE CAPITAL GAINS EXEMPTION TO THE EXTENT OF ` 51,36,785/- ITA NO.2132/16 :- 3 -: (PROPORTIONATE TO THE SALE CONSIDERATION) AND THE B ALANCE AMOUNT OF ` 30,39,915/- WAS BROUGHT TO TAX UNDER THE CAPITAL GA INS. 4. THE ASSESSEE WENT ON APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. WHILE CONFIRMING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER, THE CIT(A) RELIED ON THE DECISION OF MUMBAI BENCH OF THE TRIBU NAL IN THE CASE OF MILAN SHARAD RUPAREL VS ACIT, 27 SOT 61 AND HYDERAB AD BENCH DECISION IN THE CASE OF V. KUMAR VS DCIT , 135 ITD 116. 5. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE US. 6. LD. AR, SHRI R.M. NARAYANAN, APPEARING FOR THE AS SESSEE ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD THE PROPERTY ON 17.9.2012 AND ACQUIRED THE NEW PROPERTY ON 30.1.2013 I.E WITHIN T WO YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THE SALE OF THE ORIGINAL ASSET. THE SALE C ONSIDERATION OF THE ASSET SOLD WAS ` 90 LAKHS AND THE COST OF THE NEW ASSET WAS ` 1,44,59,800/-. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS INVESTED TH E SASLE CONSIDERATION WITHIN TWO YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 54F OF THE ACT. THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED T HAT THOUGH THE ASSESSEE ALONGWITH HER SON AND DAUGHTER-IN-LAW BORR OWED MONEY FROM THE STATE BANK OF INDIA OVER AND ABOVE THE SUM OF ` 56,54,000/-, THE ITA NO.2132/16 :- 4 -: SAME SHOULD NOT COME ON IN THE WAY OF INCOME TAX DE PARTMENT FOR ALLOWING THE DEDUCTION U/S 54F OF THE ACT. THE ON LY REQUIREMENT OF SEC. 54F IS THAT THE NEW ASSET REQUIRED TO BE ACQU IRED WITHIN TWO YEARS BUT NOT THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT. THE ASSES SEE IS FREE TO INVEST FROM THE SALE PROCEEDS HIS OWN SOURCE OF INCOME AN D ALSO FROM BORROWED FUNDS. THE ASSESSING OFFICERS OBSERVATIO N THAT THE BALANCE HAS BEEN FUNDED OUT OF BANK LOAN AND THE BANK LOAN WAS GIVEN ONLY BASED ON THE CREDENTIALS OF THE ASSESSEES SON SHR I ANEESH SIVAKUMAR AND DAUGHTER-IN-LAW SMT NEHA BHUJANG AND THEIR CAPA CITY TO REPAY THE LOAN SHOULD NOT BECOME A GROUND FOR DISALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. FOR GRANTING DEDUCTION U/S 54F, THE ASS ESSING OFFICER HAS TO RELY ON THE MAIN OBJECT OF SEC. 54F WHICH IS TO ENCOURAGE HOUSING AND ASSESSEE HAS DULY COMPLIED WITH BY PURCHASING A NEW HOUSE PROPERTY. THE ASSESSEE ALSO RELIED ON THE JURISDI CTIONAL HIGH COURTS JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS R. SRINIVASAN, 235 C TR 588. THE LD. AR ALSO RELIED ON THE JUDGMENT OF P&H HIGH COURT IN TH E CASE OF CIT VS KAPIL KUMAR AGARWAL, 66 TAXMANN.COM 191. HELD IN ORDER TO AVAIL BENEFIT UNDER SECTION 54F, THE AS SESSEE IS REQUIRED TO EITHER PURCHASE A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR BEFORE OR TWO YEARS AFTER THE DATE ON WHICH TRANSFER TAKES PLACE OR CONSTRUCT A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE WITHIN A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS AFTER THAT DATE. IN SUCH CASES, THE CAPITAL GAINS SHALL BE COMPUTED AS PER CLAUSES (A) AND (B) OF SUB- SECTION (1). IN CASE, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ABLE TO APPROPRIATE THE SALE PROCEEDS OF LONG- TERM CAPITAL GAIN, THEN BEFORE FILING OF A RETURN UNDER SECTION 139(1) HE IS REQUIRED TO DEPOSIT THE SAME UNDER ANY CAPITAL GAIN ACCOUNT SCHEME WITH A BANK OR INSTITUT ION SPECIFIED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE. THE ASSESSEE HA S TO FILE PROOF OF SUCH DEPOSIT ALONG WITH THE RETURN FOR CLAIMING EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54F. [PARA 13] ITA NO.2132/16 :- 5 -: THE ASSESSEE HAS TO PURCHASE OR CONSTRUCT A HOUSE P ROPERTY DURING THE PERIOD SPECIFIED UNDER SECTION 54F IN ORDER TO GET BENEFIT THEREUNDER. SECTION 54F NOWHERE ENVISAGES THAT THE SALE CONSIDERATION OBTA INED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE ORIGINAL CAPITAL ASSET IS MANDATORILY REQUIRED TO B E UTILIZED FOR THE PURCHASE OR CONSTRUCTION OF A HOUSE PROPERTY. NO PROVISION HAS BEEN MADE BY THE STATUTE THAT IN ORDER TO AVAIL BENEFIT OF SECTION 54F, THE ASSES SEE HAS TO U TILIZE THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY HIM ON SALE OF ORIGINAL CAPITAL ASSET F OR THE PURPOSES OF MEETING THE COST OF THE NEW ASSET. ONCE THAT IS SO, THE ASSESSE E WAS ENTITLED FOR BENEFIT UNDER SECTION 54F. [PARA 14] IT HAS BEEN CATEGORICALLY RECORDED BY THE TRIBUNAL THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE INVESTMENT WELL WITHIN THE STIPULATED PERIOD. THE I NVESTMENT WAS MORE THAN THE CAPITAL GAIN EARNED BY HIM. [PARA 15] THE INVESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BEING WITHIN T HE STIPULATED TIME AND MORE THAN THE CAPITAL GAIN EARNED BY HIM, THE ADDITION W AS RIGHTLY DELETED BY THE TRIBUNAL UNDER THE HEAD LONG-TERM CAPITAL GAIN. [PA RA IN THE CASE OF CIT VS . R . SRINIVASAN (2010) 235 CTR (MAD) 588 : (2010) 45 DTR 208 DECIDED BY THE JURISDICTION HIGH COURT VIZ., HIGH COURT OF MADRAS, IT HAS BEEN CLEARLY HELD EVEN IF THE SALE PROCEEDS ARE NOT INVESTED IN PURCHASE OF NEW PROPER TY, STILL THE DEDUCTION U/S 54F IS TO BE ALLOWED FOR INVESTMENT I N NEW PROPERTY AS PER THE PLAIN LANGUAGE AND INTENTION OF THE SECTION . SECTION 54F ALLOWS DEDUCTION FOR INVESTMENT IN NEW PROPERTY EVEN ONE Y EAR BEFORE THE SALE OF THE OLD PROPERTY GIVING RISE TO CAPITAL GAI NS. IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WERE TO INSIST THAT ONLY THE SALE CONSIDERA TION HAS TO BE UTILISED IN PURCHASE OF NEW PROPERTY, THEN THE SAID PROVISIO N WILL GET DEFEATED. HENCE, ANY ASSUMPTION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS T O ANY SUCH PRECONDITION IS NOT CONTEMPLATED BY THE PROVISION. SECTION 54F IS CLEAR, UNAMBIGUOUS AND PLAIN. IT IS ONLY A MERE PRESUMPTIO N AND ASSUMPTION ITA NO.2132/16 :- 6 -: OF THE REVENUE. IT IS A WELL-SETTLED PRINCIPLE THAT TAXING STATUTE SHALL HAVE TO BE INTERPRETED ON THE BASIS OF THE LANGUAGE . SECTION 54F ENCOURAGES INVESTMENT IN RESIDENTIAL HOUSE AND THE SAME IS REQUIRED TO BE INTERPRETED IN SUCH A MANNER AS NOT TO NULLIF Y THE OBJECT. 7. THE DELHI HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. RAVINDRA KUMAR AROR A (ITA NO. 1106 OF 2011 ) HELD THAT SECTION 54F MANDATES THAT THE HOUSE SHOULD BE PURCHASED BY THE TAXPAYER AND IT DO ES NOT STIPULATE THAT THE HOUSE SHOULD BE PURCHASED IN THE NAME OF T HE TAXPAYER ONLY. OBJECTIVE OF SECTION 54F OF THE ACT AND THE LIKE PR OVISION SUCH AS SECTION 54 OF THE ACT IS TO PROVIDE IMPETUS TO THE HOUSE CONSTRUCTION AND SO LONG AS THE PURPOSE OF HOUSE CONSTRUCTION IS ACHIEVED, SUCH HYPER TECHNICALITY SHOULD NOT IMPEDE THE WAY OF DED UCTION WHICH THE LEGISLATURE HAS ALLOWED. PURPOSIVE CONSTRUCTION IS TO BE PREFERRED AS AGAINST THE LITERAL CONSTRUCTION, MORE SO WHEN EVEN LITERAL CONSTRUCTION ALSO DOES NOT SAY THAT THE HOUSE SHOULD BE PURCHASE D IN THE NAME OF THE TAXPAYER ONLY. SECTION 54F OF THE ACT IS THE BE NEFICIAL PROVISION WHICH SHOULD BE INTERPRETED LIBERALLY IN FAVOUR OF THE EXEMPTION/DEDUCTION TO THE TAXPAYER AND DEDUCTION S HOULD NOT BE DENIED ON HYPER TECHNICAL GROUND. THE HONOURABLE HC ALSO RELIED ON THE ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT RULING IN LATE MIR GU LAM AII KHAN VS. CIT, (1987) 165 ITR 228 (AP) WHERE IN IT WAS HELD T HAT: OBJECT OF ITA NO.2132/16 :- 7 -: GRANTING EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54 OF THE ACT IS T HAT THE TAXPAYER WHO SELLS A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE FOR PURCHASING ANOTH 1 R HOUSE MUST BE GIVEN EXEMPTION SO FAR AS CAPITAL GAINS ARE CONCERN ED. THE WORD 'ASSESSEE' MUST BE GIVEN WIDE AND LIBERAL INTERPRET ATION SO AS TO INCLUDE HIS LEGAL HEIRS ALSO. THERE IS NO WARRANT F OR GIVING TOO STRICT AN INTERPRETATION TO THE WORD 'ASSESSEE' AS THAT WOULD FRUSTRATE THE OBJECT OF GRANTING EXEMPTION. BASED ON THE ABOVE JUDGMENTS AND ANOTHER RULING (CIT VS, NATRAJAN (2007) 287 ITR 271 (MAD) A ND CIT VS. GURNAM SINGH (2010) 327 ITR 278), THE HONOURABLE HC HELD THAT THE CONDITIONS STIPULATED IN SECTION 54F OF THE ACT WAS FULFILLED BY THE TAXPAYER AND TAXPAYER WAS ENTITLED FOR BENEFIT OF S ECTION 54F OF THE ACT WITH REFERENCE TO THE TOTAL INVESTMENT OF RS. 3 ,28,15,000/-. 8. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR ARGUED THAT THE STATE BANK OF INDIA GRANTED THE LOAN ON THE STRENGTH OF THE REPAY ING CAPACITY OF THE ASSESSEES SON SHRI ANEESH SIVAKUMAR AND DAUGHTER-I N-LAW SMT. NEHA BHUJANG. THE LOAN WAS ALSO REPAID BY SHRI ANEESH S IVAKUMAR FROM HIS OWN SOURCES. THE ASSESSEE IS A RETIRED PERSON AND HER AGE AND INCOME EARNING CAPACITY CANNOT NOT IMPRESS THE BANK S TO EXTEND THE LOAN FACILITY OF SUCH HUGE AMOUNT. THEREFORE, THE LD. DR ARGUED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE A SSESSING OFFICER. ITA NO.2132/16 :- 8 -: FURTHER, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE DECISIONS RE LIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE WERE DISTINGUISHED BY THE CIT(A). 9. WE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATE RIAL PLACED BEFORE US. ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS SOL D A PROPERTY SITUATED IN BANGALORE ON 17.9.2012 FOR A CONSIDERAT ION OF ` 90 LAKHS AND ACQUIRED A NEW FLAT 3B, 101 KALPATARU AURA, LA LBAHADUR SHASTRI MARG, GHATKOPAR, MUMBAI, FOR A CONSIDERATION OF ` 1,44,59,800/- ALONGWITH HER SON SHRI ANEESH SIVAKUMAR AND DAUGHTE R-IN-LAW SMT NEHA BHUJANG. FROM THE SALE PROCEEDS OF ` 90 LAKHS, THE ASSESSEE HAS INVESTED ` 56,54,000/- AND THE BALANCE AMOUNT WAS FUNDED FROM STATE BANK OF INDIA LOAN. THE PROPERTY WAS ACQUIRE D JOINTLY IN THE NAMES OF ASSESSEE AND HER SON AND DAUGHTER-IN-LAW. THE PROPERTY WAS ACQUIRED WITHIN TWO YEARS FROM THE SALE OF THE IMPUGNED ASSET. THE PROPERTY WAS ACQUIRED BEFORE FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME AND CLAIMED CAPITAL GAINS DEDUCTION U/S 54F OF THE ACT . THE TOTAL COST OF THE NEW ASSET WAS PARTLY FUNDED FROM THE CAPITAL GA INS AND PARTLY FROM THE BANK LOAN. AS PER SECTION 54F OF THE ACT, THE S OURCE OF INVESTMENT IS NOT A FACTOR FOR DETERMINING THE DEDUCTION U/S 54F. FOR READY REFERENCE, SEC. 54F IS REPRODUCED BELOW: ITA NO.2132/16 :- 9 -: 54F. (1) 21 [SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECTION (4), WHER E, IN THE CASE OF AN ASSESSEE BEING AN INDIVIDUAL OR A HINDU UNDIVIDE D FAMILY], THE CAPITAL GAIN ARISES FROM THE TRANSFER OF ANY LONG-TERM CAPI TAL ASSET, NOT BEING A 22 RESIDENTIAL HOUSE (HEREAFTER IN THIS SECTION REFERR ED TO AS THE ORIGINAL ASSET), AND THE ASSESSEE HAS, WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR B EFORE OR 23 [TWO YEARS] AFTER THE DATE ON WHICH THE TRANSFER TOOK PLACE 22 PURCHASED, OR HAS WITHIN A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS AFTER THAT DATE 24 [CONSTRUCTED, ONE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE IN INDIA] (HEREAFTER IN THIS SECTION REFERRED TO AS THE NEW A SSET), THE CAPITAL GAIN SHALL BE DEALT WITH IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING PROV ISIONS OF THIS SECTION, 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 GA IN SHALL NOT BE CHARGED UNDER SECTION 45 ; ( B ) IF THE COST OF THE NEW ASSET IS LESS THAN THE NET C ONSIDERATION IN RESPECT OF THE ORIGINAL ASSET, SO MUCH OF THE CAPITAL GAIN AS BEARS TO THE WHOLE OF THE CAPITAL GAIN THE SAME PROPORTION AS THE COST OF THE NEW ASSET BEARS TO THE NET CONSIDERATION, SHALL NOT BE CHARGED UNDER SECTION 45 : 25 [ PROVIDED THAT NOTHING CONTAINED IN THIS SUB-SECTION SHALL A PPLY WHERE ( A ) THE ASSESSEE, ( I ) OWNS> 25A MORE THAN ONE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE, OTHER THAN THE NEW ASSET, ON THE DATE OF TRANSFER OF THE ORIGINAL ASSET; OR ( II ) PURCHASES ANY RESIDENTIAL HOUSE, OTHER THAN THE NEW ASSET, WI THIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE DATE OF TRANSFER OF TH E ORIGINAL ASSET; OR ( III ) 26 CONSTRUCTS ANY RESIDENTIAL HOUSE, OTHER THAN THE NE W ASSET, WITHIN A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS AFTER THE DATE OF TRANSFER OF THE ORIGI NAL ASSET; AND ( B ) THE INCOME FROM SUCH RESIDENTIAL HOUSE, OTHER THAN THE ONE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE OWNED ON THE DATE OF TRANSFER OF THE ORIGINAL ASSET , IS CHARGEABLE UNDER THE HEAD 'INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY'.] EXPLANATION. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, 27 [***] 28 [***] 'NET CONSIDERATION' 29 , IN RELATION TO THE TRANSFER OF A CAPITAL ASSET, MEANS THE FULL VALUE OF THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED OR ACCRUING AS A RESULT OF THE TRANSFER OF THE CAPITAL ASSET AS REDUCED BY ANY EXPENDITURE INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY IN CONNECTION WITH SUCH TRAN SFER. 10. AS PER SEC. 54F, IF THE COST OF THE NEW ASSET IS NO T LESS THAN THE NET CONSIDERATION IN RESPECT OF THE ORIGINAL AS SET, THE WHOLE OF SUCH CAPITAL GAIN SHALL NOT BE CHARGED U/S 45 OF THE AC T. SIMILARLY, THE REQUIREMENT IS TO PURCHASE NEW ASSET BEFORE ONE YEAR OR AFTER TWO ITA NO.2132/16 :- 10 -: YEARS OF THE DATE ON WHICH THE TRANSFER TOOK PLACE. IN THIS CASE, THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED THE NEW ASSET WITHIN THE STIPULATED TIME PERIOD UNDER THE ACT WAS NOT DISPUT ED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE JUDGMENT OF J URISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF R. SRINIVASAN ( CITED SUPRA) A ND OTHER HONBLE COURTS WHICH SUPPORT THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION. 11. THE ISSUE REGARDING WHETHER THE INVESTMENT IN A CAP ITAL ASSET IS REQUIRED TO BE SOURCED FROM THE CAPITAL GA IN OR NOT HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE HON'BLE P&H HIGH COURT IN THE CAS E OF KAPIL KUMAR AGARWAL (SUPRA) RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE. THE HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT SEC. 54F NOWHERE ENVISAGES THAT THE SALE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE ORIGINAL CAPITAL ASSET MANDATORILY SHOULD TO BE UTILIZED FOR THE PURCHASE OR CONSTRUCT ION OF THE NEW HOUSE PROPERTY. THE SIMPLE REQUIREMENT IS TO INVEST IN A N ASSET WITHIN THE STIPULATED TIME. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS I NVESTED WITHIN THE STIPULATED TIME. THEREFORE, WE HOLD THAT THE ASSE SSEE IS ENTITLED FOR THE DEDUCTION U/S 54F OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THE ADDITION MADE BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DELETED. ITA NO.2132/16 :- 11 -: 12. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLO WED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 10 TH NOVEMBER, 2016, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . . . ' ) (N.R.S. GANESAN) / JUDICIAL MEMBER ( . . ' # $ ) (D.S. SUNDER SINGH) % / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER #$ / CHENNAI %& / DATED: 10 TH NOVEMBER, 2016 RD &' ()*) / COPY TO: 1 . / APPELLANT 4. + / CIT 2. / RESPONDENT 5. ),- . / DR 3. +/' / CIT(A) 6. -01 / GF