DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI V. MALAVIKA SHIVAKUMAR, CHENNAI

ITA 27/CHNY/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 109 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7881 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-01-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 06-01-2020
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: G. CHANDRABABU
• Assessee Lawyers: V.S.JAYARAMAN
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Benefit of exemption; Set aside; Capital Gains
• Section: 54; 54F; 201; 13

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , A B ENCH, CHENNAI . , . , % BEFORE SHRI V.DURGA RAO , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G.MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NO. 27/CHNY/2020 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2015-16) THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI-600 034. VS MRS. MALAVIKA SHIVAKUMAR, 12, RUTLAND GATE, 5 TH STREET NUNGAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI-600 006. PAN: ADZPR 8509D ( /APPELLANT) /RESPONDENT/ / APPELLANT BY : MR.G.CHANDRABABU, ADDL.CIT /RESPONDENT BY : MR. V.S.JAYARAMAN, ADVOCATE /DATE OF HEARING : 04.01.2021 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18.01.2021 / O R D E R PER G.MANJUNATHA, AM: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAI NST ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-1 1, CHENNAI DATED 30.10.2019 AND PERTAIN TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 201 5-16. 2. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IS CONTRARY TO LAW AND FACTS AND CIRCUMST ANCES OF THE CASE. 2) THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALL OWING ASSESSEES APPEAL WITHOUT PROPER APPRECIATION OF TH E FACTS. 3) THE LD.CIT{A) IS ERRED IN ALLOWING THE DISALLOWA NCE OF THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.54F MADE BY THE ASSESSEE, WHEN THE ASSESSEE 2 ITA NO. 27/CHNY/2020 HAS FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE CONDITION MANDATED UN DER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 54F(4) FOR AVAILING THE BENEF IT OF DEDUCTION U/S.54F(1), I.E., DEPOSITING OF UNUTILIZED AMOUNT I N THE CAPITAL GAINS ACCOUNTS SCHEME, ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME U/ S.139(1) OF THE ACT. 4) THE LD.CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO CONSIDER THE FACT TH AT COMPLETION CERTIFICATE, WATER CONNECTION WERE NOT GIVEN BY THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER (BDO) AND ALSO ASSESSEE HAS NOT PAID ANY PROPERTY TAX AS PER THE BDO LETTER DATED 22/ 12/201 7. 5) THE ID.CIT{A) OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACT THAT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS WELL AS REMAND PROCEEDING S ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO SUBMIT THE CONSTRUCTION AGRE EMENT FAR VERIFICATION OF DETAILS OF CONSTRUCTION EXPENSES, E STIMATION MADE BY THE BUILDER, COMPLETION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY TH E BUILDER, ELECTRICITY CONNECTION EXPENSES, DETAILS OF PROPERT Y TAX PAID ETC. 6) FOR THESE AND OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE ADDUCED AT THE TIME OF HEARING, IT IS PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE EARNED CIT (A) MAY BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE REST ORED. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND DIRECTOR OF M/S. VASTRAKALA EXPORTS PVT. LTD. FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16 ON 31.08.2015 D ECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF ` 87,79,550/-. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AN D DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AS SESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED LARGE DE DUCTION U/S.54F OF THE ACT AND HENCE, CALLED UPON ASSESSEE TO FILE NECESSARY DETAILS INCLUDING COMPUTATION OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AN D PROOF OF CLAIM FOR BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION U/S. 54F OF THE ACT. IN RE SPONSE, ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16, SHE HAD SOLD EQUITY SHARES FOR CONSIDERATI ON OF 3 ITA NO. 27/CHNY/2020 ` 5,09,30,326/- AND COMPUTED LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AFTER CLAIMING BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION U/S. 54F OF THE ACT TOWARDS CO NSTRUCTION OF ANOTHER RESIDENTIAL HOUSE FOR A SUM OF ` 3,72,81,393/-. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT BALANCE AMOUNT OF C APITAL GAIN HAS BEEN ADMITTED FOR TAX. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AFTE R CONSIDERING RELEVANT SUBMISSIONS OF ASSESSEE WAS OF THE OPINION THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED FOR BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION U/S. 54F O F THE ACT ,BECAUSE CONSTRUCTION OF PROPERTY WAS NOT COMPLETED WITHIN T HREE YEARS FROM THE DATE OF TRANSFER OF ORIGINAL ASSET AS ENVISAGE D U/S. 54F OF THE ACT, WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE H AS SOLD SHARES ON 28.05.2014 AND IN ORDER TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTIO N, CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSE SHOULD BE COMPLETED ON OR BEFORE 31.05.2017. ALTHOUGH ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED LAND ON 18.3.2015 FOR CONSI DERATION OF ` 3,08,79,000/-, BALANCE AMOUNT HAS NOT BEEN DEPOSITE D IN CAPITAL GAINS DEPOSIT ACCOUNTS SCHEME , AS REQUIRED UNDER THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED A SUM OF ` 1,20,00,000/- INSTEAD OF ` 1,97,79,640/-, THEREFORE, ASSESSING OFFICER WAS O F THE OPINION THAT DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/S. 54F OF THE ACT IS NOT IN ACC ORDANCE WITH LAW. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO NOTED THAT ALTHOUGH ASSESSEE CLAIMS TO HAVE COMPLETED CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUI LDING, BUT ON PERUSAL OF DETAILS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE INCLUDI NG INFORMATION 4 ITA NO. 27/CHNY/2020 OBTAINED FROM BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER U/S.133( 6) OF THE ACT CLEARLY INDICATE THAT BUILDING WAS NOT COMPLETED IN ALL RESPECTS AND NECESSARY ELECTRICITY AND WATER CONNECTION WAS NOT PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT OBTAINED COMPLETION CERTIFICATE FROM THE CONCERNED AUTHORITIES. FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS CLEAR THAT CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING WAS NOT COMPLETED WITHIN STIPULATED TIME AND ALSO ASSESSEE HAS NOT INVESTED BALANCE SALE CONSIDERATION IN CAPITAL GAINS DEPOSIT ACCOUNT SCHEME ON OR BEFORE T HE DUE DATE OF FURNISHING RETURN OF INCOME U/S.139(1) OF THE ACT AND HENCE, NOT ENTITLED FOR EXEMPTION U/S. 54F OF THE ACT, ACCORDI NGLY, REJECTED EXEMPTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AND MADE ADDITION OF ` 5,06,46,640/- 4. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, ASS ESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE LEARNED CIT(A). BEFORE L EARNED CIT(A), ASSESSEE HAS FILED DETAILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ALO NG WITH CERTAIN ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES AND ARGUED THAT CONSTRUCTION O F BUILDING WAS COMPLETED IN ALL RESPECTS AND ASSESSEE HAS OBTAINED ELECTRICITY CONNECTION AND ALSO PAID PROPERTY TAX ON 03.03.2017 . THE ASSESSEE FURTHER CLAIMED THAT EVEN ASSUMING FOR A MOMENT BUI LDING WAS NOT PROVIDED WITH ELECTRICITY CONNECTION AND WATER CON NECTION, BUT FACT 5 ITA NO. 27/CHNY/2020 REMAINS THAT IT HAS FURNISHED NECESSARY EVIDENCES I NCLUDING BILLS, VOUCHERS FOR PROCUREMENT OF MATERIALS AND LABOUR FO R CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING AND SANCTION LETTER FROM ELECTRICITY BOARD DATED 20.04.217. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS FORWARDED ADDITIONAL EVIDEN CES FILED BY ASSESSEE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR HIS COMMENTS . THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE REMAND REPORT DATED 27.0 5.2019 HAS REITERATED HIS OBSERVATIONS MADE DURING THE COU RSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND ARGUED THAT ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO FILE ANY EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT BUILDING WAS COMPLETED O N OR BEFORE DUE DATE SPECIFIED U/S.54F OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE H AS ALSO REBUTTED OBSERVATIONS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER INSOFAR AS I NVESTMENT OF BALANCE SALE CONSIDERATION IN CAPITAL GAINS DEPOS IT ACCOUNT SCHEME AND SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS WRONGLY T AKEN LAND PURCHASE VALUE AT ` 3,08,70,000/- INSTEAD OF ACTUAL CONSIDERATION PAID BY ASSESSEE OF ` 2,52,80,820/-. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO MADE DEPOSIT IN CAPITAL GAINS ACCOUNT SCHEME OF ` 1,20,00,000/- AND THUS, MADE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S. 54F OF THE ACT FOR ` 3,72,81,393/- ON PROPORTIONATE BASIS AND FOR BALANCE SALE CONSIDER ATION NECESSARY TAX HAS BEEN PAID. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT APPRECIATING THESE FACTS HAS SIMPLY REJECTED THE CLAIM OF ASSES SEE. 6 ITA NO. 27/CHNY/2020 5. THE LEARNED CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING RELEVAN T SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND HAS ALSO TAKEN NOTE OF VARIOUS ADD ITIONAL EVIDENCES INCLUDING BILLS AND VOUCHERS FILED BY ASSESSEE HELD THAT ASSESSEE HAS MAINTAINED DETAILED VOUCHERS IN SUPPO RT OF CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY OUT OF AMOUNTS WITHDRAWN F ROM CAPITAL GAINS DEPOSIT ACCOUNT SCHEME. THE EXPENDITURE HAVE BEE N INCURRED WELL BEFORE 31.3.2017. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO SUBMI TTED TAX PAID RECEIPTS FOR ASSESSMENT OF BUILDING FOR MUNICIP AL TAXES DATED 03.03.2017 AND HAS ALSO OBTAINED ELECTRICITY SANC TION LETTER ON 20.04.2017. ALL THESE ARE BEFORE THE DUE DATE SPE CIFIED UNDER THE ACT. FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS CLEAR THAT ASSESSEE H AS COMPLETED CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING ON OR BEFORE MAY, 2017 AND HENCE ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION U/S.54F OF THE ACT. ACCORDI NGLY, LEARNED CIT(A) DELETED ADDITIONS MADE BY ASSESSING OFFI CER TOWARDS DISALLOWANCE OF EXEMPTION CLAIMED U/S.54F OF THE AC T. THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF LEARNED CIT(A) ARE AS UNDER:- 9. THE ASSESSEE HAS MAINTAINED DETAILED VOUCHERS I N SUPPORT OF THE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY CONDUCTED AND ALL BILLS AND VOUCHERS IN SUPPORT OF THE AMOUNTS SPENT AND WITHDRAWALS FROM CAPITAL GAINS ACCOUNT. THE EXPENDITURES HAVE BEEN INCURRED WELL-BEFORE 31.03.2017. ALL THESE EXPENDITURES ARE THROUGH BANK 7 ITA NO. 27/CHNY/2020 ACCOUNTS AND ARE PROPERLY VOUCHED. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO SUBMITTED TAX PAID RECEIPT DATED 03.03.2017 IN SUPPORT OF THE PROPERTY TAX. THE ELECTRICITY SANCTI ONED OF 25KV IS ALSO EVIDENCED ON 20.04.2017. 10. THE CRUCIAL ELEMENT TO VERIFY IS WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED THE EXPENDITURE OUT OF THE CAPITAL GAINS ACCOUNT THROUGH VERIFIABLE SOURCES. T HIS HAS BEEN ABUNDANTLY ESTABLISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. TH E ASSESSEE HAS COMPLETED THE CONSTRUCTION AND OBTAINE D NECESSARY SANCTIONS FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES. IT IS QUITE POSSIBLE THAT COMPLETION CERTIFICATE FROM LOCAL AUT HORITY IS NOT OBTAINED. LOCAL AUTHORITIES DO NOT ISSUE TIM ELY COMPLETION CERTIFICATES FOR VARIOUS REASONS ASSESSE E CANNOT BE HELD PUNISHABLE FOR THE SAME. ON THE CONTRARY, THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED COMPETITION CERTIFICATES FROM CONTRACTORS AND ENGINEERS OF THE PROJECT. THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ABLE TO INDEPENDENTL Y AND VERIFIABLY ESTABLISH THAT THE CAPITAL GAIN AMOU NT IS UTILIZED TOWARDS CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPERTY. THE PROPERLY IS CONSTRUCTED WELL BEFORE THE DEADLINE. IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AS ABOVE, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ADDUCED SUFFICIEN T EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF HER CLAIM REGARDING COMPLET ION OF THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. THE ASSESSEE IS HELD ELIG IBLE TO CLAIM DEDUCTION U/S 54F. ASSESSING OFFICER IS DI RECTED TO ALLOW THE SAME. 6. THE LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING DISALLOWANCE OF CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S. 54F OF THE ACT WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE HAS F AILED TO COMPLY WITH THE CONDITION MANDATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 54F(4) OF THE ACT TO AVAIL BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION U/S .54F(1) OF THE 8 ITA NO. 27/CHNY/2020 ACT. THE DR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT LEARNED A.O. HA S BROUGHT OUT CLEAR FACTS TO THE EFFECT THAT BUILDING WAS NOT COM PLETED AND WHICH WAS FURTHER SUPPORTED BY DEPOSITION GIVEN BY BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER. HOWEVER, LEARNED CIT(A) ON TH E BASIS OF TAX PAID RECEIPT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE OPINED THAT BUI LDING WAS COMPLETED WELL BEFORE MAY, 2017. THE DR FURTHER SUB MITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FAILED TO FILE CONSTRUCTION AGREE MENT WITH THE BUILDER FOR CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING AND ALSO FAILE D TO FILE NECESSARY EVIDENCES TO PROVE THAT AMOUNT HAS BEEN SPENT FOR C ONSTRUCTION. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE BASIS OF E VIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS RIGHTLY DISALLOWED THE CLAIM, WHE REAS LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ALLOWED THE CLAIM WITHOUT VERIFYING FACT S. 7. THE LEARNED AR FOR THE ASSESSEE, ON THE OTHER H AND, STRONGLY SUPPORTING THE ORDER LEARNED CIT(A) SUBM ITTED IT IS A FACT THAT BUILDING WAS COMPLETED ON OR BEFORE 31.05.2 017 IS NOT DISPUTED, BECAUSE ASSESSEE HAS FILED NECESSARY EV IDENCE INCLUDING TAX PAID RECEIPTS AND ELECTRICITY CON NECTION SANCTION LETTER FROM CONCERNED AUTHORITIES, WHICH IS WELL B EFORE DUE DATE SPECIFIED UNDER THE ACT. THE AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT INSOFAR AS OBSERVATIONS OF LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER THAT ASS ESSEE OUGHT TO 9 ITA NO. 27/CHNY/2020 HAVE INVESTED BALANCE CONSIDERATION OF ` 1,97,79,640/- INSTEAD OF ` 1,20,00,000/-, THE ACT DOES NOT SPECIFY INVESTME NT OF FULL CONSIDERATION IN ORDER TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTIO N. EVEN IN A CASE WHERE ASSESSEE UTILIZED PART SALE CONSIDERATION FOR INVESTMENT IN NEW ASSET, HE/SHE CAN CLAIM PROPORTIONATE EXEMPTION . BUT WHAT IS RELEVANT IS WHETHER ASSESSEE HAS SATISFIED THE CON DITIONS PRESCRIBED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 54F OF THE ACT OR NOT. IN THIS CASE, THERE IS NO DISPUTE WITH REGARD TO FACT THAT ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED LAND ON OR BEFORE DUE DATE AND HAS AL SO COMPLETED CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING WITHIN THREE YEARS FROM TH E DATE OF TRANSFER OF ORIGINAL ASSET. THEREFORE, LEARNED CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING RELEVANT FACTS HAS RIGHTLY DELETED ADDITIONS MADE B Y ASSESSING OFFICER AND HIS ORDER SHOULD BE UPHELD. 8. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH PARTIES, PERUSED MATERIAL AV AILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BE LOW. THE FACT WITH REGARD TO SALE OF ORIGINAL ASSET BEING SHARES HELD IN A COMPANY AND SUBSEQUENT INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF LAND ON OR BEFORE DUE DATE SPECIFIED UNDER ACT WAS NOT DISPU TED BY ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALS O NOT DISPUTED FACT THAT ASSESSEE HAS INVESTED SUM OF ` 1,20,00,000/- IN CAPITAL 10 ITA NO. 27/CHNY/2020 GAINS DEPOSIT ACCOUNT SCHEME ON OR BEFORE DUE DATE OF FURNISHING RETURN OF INCOME U/S.139(1) OF THE ACT. THE ONLY DI SPUTE MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER IS WITH REGARD TO COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING WITHIN THREE YEARS FROM THE DATE OF TRAN SFER OF ORIGINAL ASSET AND INVESTMENT OF BALANCE SALE CONSIDERATIO N IN CAPITAL GAINS DEPOSIT ACCOUNT SCHEME. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH OBSERVATIONS MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER IN LIGHT OF VARIOUS EVIDENCES FILED BY ASSESSEE BEFORE LEARNED CIT(A) AND FOUND THAT LEARNED CIT(A) HAS RECORDED CATEGORICAL FINDING I NSOFAR AS COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING ON OR BEFOR E THREE YEARS FROM THE DATE OF TRANSFER OF ORIGINAL ASSET. WE FUR THER NOTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS PLACED ALL EVIDENCES INCLUDING ELECT RICITY CONNECTION OBTAINED FROM CONCERNED AUTHORITIES I N THE MONTH OF APRIL, 2017 AND HAS ALSO TAX PAID RECEIPTS FOR ASSE SSMENT OF BUILDING FOR MUNICIPAL TAXES , WHICH IS ALSO WELL BEFORE DUE DATE SPECIFIED UNDER THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO PL ACED VARIOUS EVIDENCES INCLUDING BILLS AND VOUCHERS FOR PROCURE MENT OF MATERIAL AND LABOUR FOR CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING . THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN COMING TO THE CONCLUSION THAT BUILDING CONSTRUCTIO N WAS NOT COMPLETED BEFORE MAY, 2017 ONLY ON THE BASIS OF NON-FURNISHING 11 ITA NO. 27/CHNY/2020 OF COMPLETION CERTIFICATE FROM MUNICIPAL AUTHORITI ES. NO DOUBT, COMPLETION CERTIFICATE IS ONE EVIDENCE FOR HAVING COMPLETED CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING, BUT IT IS NOT MATERIAL E VIDENCE TO DRAW ADVERSE INFERENCE AGAINST ASSESSEE, WHEN ASSESSEE HAS PLACED ALL OTHER EVIDENCES WHICH INDICATE COMPLETION OF C ONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING. THE LEARNED CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING R ELEVANT FACTS HAS RIGHTLY HELD THAT CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING WAS CO MPLETED WITHIN THREE YEARS FROM THE DATE OF TRANSFER OF ORIGINAL ASSET AND HENCE, WE ARE INCLINED TO UPHOLD THE FINDINGS OF LEARN ED CIT(A) AND REJECT GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE REVENUE. 9. AS REGARDS ANOTHER OBSERVATION OF ASSESSING OFFICER REGARDING INVESTMENT OF BALANCE SALE CONSIDERATI ON IN CAPITAL GAIN ACCOUNT DEPOSIT SCHEME ON OR BEFORE DUE DATE F OR FURNISHING OF RETURN OF INCOME, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 54 F OF THE ACT NOWHERE STATES THAT ASSESSEE SHOULD INVEST FULL SAL E CONSIDERATION IN CAPITAL GAIN ACCOUNT DEPOSIT SCHEME IN ORDER TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION FROM CAPITAL GAIN. THE LAW IS VERY CLEAR AS PER WHICH IF AN ASSESSEE INVESTS FULL CONSIDERATION FROM SALE OF ORIGINAL ASSET FOR PURCHASING OR CONSTRUCTING ANOTHER RESIDENTIA L HOUSE, THEN ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR 100% EXEMPTION FROM CAPITA L GAIN TAX. IN 12 ITA NO. 27/CHNY/2020 CASE, WHERE ASSESSEE HAS INVESTED PART SALE CONSIDE RATION FOR PURCHASE OR CONSTRUCTION OF ANOTHER RESIDENTIAL HO USE, THEN PROPORTIONATE DEDUCTION IS ALLOWED COMMENSURATE WIT H INVESTMENT MADE IN NEW ASSET. IN THIS CASE, ON PERUSAL OF DETA ILS FILED BY ASSESSEE, WE FIND THAT ASSESSEE HAS MADE INVESTMENT OF RS.1,20,00,000/- IN CAPITAL GAIN ACCOUNT DEPOSIT SC HEME ON OR BEFORE DUE DATE OF FURNISHING OF RETURN OF INCOME AND SAID DEPOSIT ACCOUNT HAS BEEN UTILIZED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF BUILD ING WITHIN THREE YEARS FROM THE DATE OF TRANSFER OF ORIGINAL ASSET. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS E RRED IN REJECTING THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT ASSESSEE O UGHT TO HAVE INVESTED BALANCE CONSIDERATION IN CAPITAL GAIN ACCO UNT DEPOSIT SCHEME, MORE PARTICULARLY, WHEN ASSESSEE HAS CLAIME D THAT SHE HAS PAID TAX ON REMAINING SALE CONSIDERATION IN A CCORDANCE WITH LAW. HOWEVER, FACTS WITH REGARD TO AMOUNT OF EXEMPT ION CLAIMED U/S.54F OF THE ACT AND THE AMOUNT OF CAPITAL GAIN WHICH WAS SUBJECTED TO TAX WAS NOT FORTHCOMING FROM THE ORDER S OF LOWER AUTHORITIES. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT IT HAS CLAIME D EXEMPTION U/S.54F FOR RS.3,72,81,393/- AND FOR BALANCE CAPITA L GAIN SHE HAS PAID TAX, WHEREAS ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT ASSES SEE HAS CLAIMED EXEMPTION OF ` 3,70,75,929/-. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE 13 ITA NO. 27/CHNY/2020 CONSIDERED VIEW THAT FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF ASC ERTAINING FACTS WITH REGARD TO COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAIN FROM SA LE OF SHARES AND AMOUNT OF SALE CONSIDERATION INVESTED IN PURCHASE/C ONSTRUCTION OF NEW ASSET AND AMOUNT OF CAPITAL GAIN INCLUDED IN RE TURN AND PAYMENT OF TAXES, WE SET ASIDE THE ISSUE TO FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER AND DIRECT HIM TO VERIFY FACTS IN LIGHT OF CLAIM OF ASSESSEE THAT SHE HAD PAID TAX FOR BALANCE AMOUNT OF CAPITA L GAINS. IN CASE, ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT ASSESSEE HAS PAID TAX ON BALANCE CAPITAL GAIN, THEN ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO DELETE ADDITIONS MADE TOWARDS DISALLOWANCE OF EXEMPTION CLAIMED U/S. 54F OF THE ACT. 10. IN THE RESULT , APPEAL FILED BY REVENUE IS TREA TED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18 TH JANUARY, 2021 SD/- SD/- ( . ) ( . ) (V.DURGA RAO) ( G.MANJUNATHA ) ' $ / JUDICIAL MEMBER $ / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ' /CHENNAI, ' /DATED 18 TH JANUARY, 2021 DS )* +* /COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. , () /CIT(A) 4. , /CIT 5. * 1 /DR 6. /GF .