R.Meenakshi, CHENNAI V. ITO NCW (17) (2), CHENNAI

ITA 2448/CHNY/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5226 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-04-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 06-10-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B SAGADEVAN
• Assessee Lawyers: N DEVANATHAN
• Keywords: Salary income

Judgement Text

, / SMC , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D / SMC BENCH: CHENNAI , ! , ' | BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ ITA NO.2448/CHNY/2017 /ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 SMT. R. MEENAKSHI, NO.33, VOC I CROSS ST., CHENNAI-600 132. [PAN: AIFPM 5994 C] VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON-CORPORATE WARD-17(2), 121, M.G.ROAD, CHENNAI-600 034. ( ' /APPELLANT) ( ()' /RESPONDENT) ' * / APPELLANT BY : MR.N.DEVANATHAN, ADV. ()' * /RESPONDENT BY : MR.B.SAGADEVAN, JCIT * /DATE OF HEARING : 19.04.2018 * / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19.04.2018 / O R D E R PER GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER : ITA NO.2448/CHNY/2017 IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE AS SESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-5 , CHENNAI, IN ITA NO.214/CIT(A)-5/2016-17 DATED 01.08.2017 FOR THE AY 2009-10. 2. SHRI B.SAGADEVAN, JCIT, REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE AND SHRI N.DEVANATHAN, ADV., REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF T HE ASSESSEE. 3. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD.AR THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL WHO IS HAVING SALARY INCOME. IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSEE IS WORKING ITA NO.2448/CHNY/2017 :- 2 -: AS A NURSE. IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT DURING THE RE LEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD A PROPERTY ON 03.12.200 8 AT VADAPALANI FOR A SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.28.00 LAKHS. IT WAS A SUB MISSION THAT SHE HAD PURCHASED A VACANT LAND AT KOVVUR ON 03.11.2009 AND HAD ENTERED INTO FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE ON 19 .04.2010. IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD COMPLETED THE CONS TRUCTION OF THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE AND HAD OCCUPIED THE SAME. THE L D.AR DREW MY ATTENTION TO PAGE NO.40 OF THE PAPER BOOK, WHICH WA S A TAX PAID RECEIPT IN RESPECT OF THE ASSESSEE NEW HOUSE FOR THE FOR THE F INANCIAL YEAR 2011-12. THE LD.AR DREW MY ATTENTION TO THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW THE PAYMENTS MADE TO SHRI VARADHARAJAN TOWARDS THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF HER NEW HOUSE. THE PAYMENTS MADE TO SHRI VARADH ARAJAN ARE FROM 21.05.2010 TO 21.03.2011. THE LD.AR FURTHER DREW M Y ATTENTION TO PAGE NOS.25 TO 32 OF THE PAPER BOOK, WHERE THE APPROXIMA TE VALUE OF THE CONSTRUCTION HAS BEEN SHOWN AT RS.16.63 LAKHS. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD.AR THAT THE AO AND THE LD.CIT(A) DENIED THE ASSE SSEE THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION U/S.54F ON THE GROUND THAT THE SALE CONSI DERATION HAD NOT BEEN DEPOSITED IN THE CAPITAL GAINS ACCOUNT SCHEME WITHI N THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURNS U/S.139(1). IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAVING CONSTRUCTED THE NEW RESIDENTIAL HOUSE, THE ASSESSEE MAY BE GRANTED THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SARDARMAL KOTHARI AND ANOTHER REPORTED IN [2008] 302 ITR 286 (MAD), WHEREIN, IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT I F THE ASSESSEE ESTABLISHES THE INVESTMENT OF THE ENTIRE CAPITAL GA INS IN THE PURCHASE OF ITA NO.2448/CHNY/2017 :- 3 -: THE LAND WITHIN THE STIPULATED PERIOD, THE COMPLETI ON OF THE CONSTRUCTION WAS IMMATERIAL AND THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION U/S.54F OF THE ACT. 4. IN REPLY, THE LD.DR VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORD ER OF THE AO & THE LD.CIT(A). IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSEE H AD NOT DEPOSITED THE SALE CONSIDERATION IN THE CAPITAL GAINS ACCOUNTS SC HEME BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF THE FILING OF THE RETURN. 5. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. 6. A PERUSAL OF THE FACTS IN THE PRESENT CASE CLEAR LY SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD HER IMMOVABLE PROPERTY ON 03.12.2 008 FOR A SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.28.00 LAKHS AND SHE HAS PURCHAS ED A VACANT LAND AT KOVVUR ON 03.11.2009 FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.6,01 ,000/- AND ALSO CONSTRUCTED A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE, ADMITTEDLY, FOR A TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS.19.00 LAKHS. THE CONSTRUCTION IS ALSO EVIDENCED BY THE CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT AND SUPPORTED BY THE TAX PAID RECEIPT FOR THE FY 2011-12. THIS BEING SO, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT IN VIEW OF THE PRIN CIPLES LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SARDARMAL KOTHARI AND ANOTHER REFERRED TO SUPRA, THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION U/S.54F AS CLAIMED. CONSEQUENTLY, THE AO IS DIRECT ED TO GRANT THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION U/S.54F. ITA NO.2448/CHNY/2017 :- 4 -: 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON APRIL 19, 20 18, AT CHENNAI. SD/- ( ) (GEORGE MATHAN) ! /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 2 /DATED: APRIL 19, 2018. TLN * (34 54 /COPY TO: 1. ' /APPELLANT 4. 6 /CIT 2. ()' /RESPONDENT 5. 4 ( /DR 3. 6 ( ) /CIT(A) 6. /GF