Anita Ajay Shad, Ahmedabad V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-10(2), Ahmedabad

ITA 3154/AHD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8478 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-09-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 06-11-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DEEPAK SUTARIA
• Assessee Lawyers: SHRI P B KEDIA
• Section: 54; 139

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, AHMEDABAD , , BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO.3154/AHD/2015 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12) ANITA AJAY SHAD E-104, MARUTI CELEDRON, B/H. ISCON MEGA MALL SG HIGHWAY, JODHPUR AHMEABAD-38051 / VS. THE ITO WARD-10(2) AHMEDABAD # ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : ANEPS 9632 D ( #% / APPELLANT ) .. ( &#% / RESPONDENT ) #%' / APPELLANT BY : SHRI SHRI P.B. KEDIA, AR &#%(' / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI DEEPAK SUTARIA, SR.DR )*(+ / DATE OF HEARING 23/08/2017 ,-./(+ / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 18 /09/2017 / O R D E R PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA - AM: THE CAPTIONED APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-AHMEDABA D-5, [CIT(A) IN SHORT] DATED 21/08/2015 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2011-12. 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE R EAD AS UNDER:- ITA NO.3154/AHD /2015 ANITA AJAY SHAH VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2011-12 - 2 - 1. ON FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE APPELLANT/ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR THE EXEMPTION U/S.54 IF THE SALE CONSI DERATION UTILIZED FOR INVESTMENT IN NEW RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY WITHIN THE D UE DATE STIPULATED UNDER SECTION 139(4) OF THE ACT. 2. ON FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN RESTRICTING THE CLAIM OF D EDUCTION U/S.54 TO RS.5,00,000 ON THE GROUND THAT UTILIZATION OF SALE CONSIDERATION WAS NO WITHIN THE DUE DATE OF RETURN AS U/S.139(1) BUT W ITHIN THE DUE DATE OF FILING RETURN AS UNDER SECTION 139(4). THE LD.C IT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE ACCEPTED THE APPELLANTS CLAIM THAT SHE IS ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION U/S.54 FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS.35,23,226. THE APPELLANT, THER EFORE, PRAYS THAT THE LD.AO MAY PLEASE BE DIRECTED TO DELETE THE REMAININ G ADDITION OF RS.30,23,226 TOWARDS DEDUCTION U/S.54. 3. BRIEFLY STATED, THE ASSESSEE, AN INDIVIDUAL, FI LED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR AY 2011-12 WHEREIN INDEXED LONG TERM CAP ITAL GAIN (LTCG) OF RS.35,23,326/- WAS INTER ALIA DECLARED ON SALE OF JOINT OWNERSHIP IMMOVABLE PROPERTY FOR A TOTAL CONSIDERAT ION OF RS.1,15,00,000/-. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT SALE C ONSIDERATION ATTRIBUTABLE TO HER WAS RS.57,50,000/- BEING 50% OF BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP IN CO-OWNERSHIP PROPERTY HELD TOGETHER WITH HUSBAN D. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED EXEMPTION ON AFORESAID LTCG OF RS.35,23,3 26/- UNDER S.54 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO A S 'THE ACT') AROSE IN HER HANDS ON THE GROUND THAT SHE HAS JOINTLY PURCHA SED ANOTHER NEW RESIDENTIAL HOUSE ON 30/03/2013 FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.35 LAKHS (BEING SHARES). IT WAS THUS CLAIMED THAT ENTIRE LTCG WA S DEPLOYED TOWARDS PURCHASES OF NEW RESIDENTIAL HOUSE AND CONSEQUENTLY THE ASSESSEE IS ITA NO.3154/AHD /2015 ANITA AJAY SHAH VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2011-12 - 3 - ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION UNDER S.54 OF THE ACT. THE L TCG WAS THUS COMPUTED AT NIL BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING O FFICER (AO), HOWEVER, DENIED EXEMPTION CLAIMED UNDER S.54 OF THE ACT ON THE GROUND THAT CONDITIONS POSTULATED UNDER S.54 OF THE ACT HA S NOT BEEN FULFILLED. THE AO OBSERVED THAT OUT OF RS.35 LAKHS TOWARDS PUR CHASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS INVESTED RS.30 LAKHS BETWEEN SEPTEMBER-2011 TO DECEMBER-2011 AND THUS HAS NOT INVESTED THE MONEY BEFORE FILING O F RETURN OF INCOME. BESIDES, THE AO FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ACQUIRED THE NEW PROPERTY BEFORE FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME. TH E CLAIM OF EXEMPTION UNDER S.54 WAS THUS REFUSED. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF AO, THE ASSESSEE PREFE RRED THE APPEAL BEFORE CIT(A). 5. BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT T HE ASSESSEE RECEIVED HER SHARE IN THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF CO- OWNERSHIP PROPERTY BEING RS.57,50,000/- ON 21/02/2011. THE ASSESSEE C LAIMED THAT AGAINST THE INDEXED CAPITAL GAIN OF RS.35.23 LAKHS ARISING ON SALE OF AFORESAID RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY, THE ASSESSEE ACQUIRED NEW RES IDENTIAL PROPERTY FOR RS.35 LAKHS AND THEREFORE ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION U NDER S.54 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED AS PER THE STATEMENT O F FACTS BEFORE THE CIT(A) THAT IT INVESTED RS.30 LAKHS BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN I.E. 31/07/2011 FROM THE JOINT ACCOUNT WITH HER HUS BAND AND FURTHER RS.10 ITA NO.3154/AHD /2015 ANITA AJAY SHAH VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2011-12 - 4 - LAKHS FROM THIS ACCOUNT ON 08/08/2011 I.E. AFTER DU E DATE OF FILING OF RETURN UNDER S.139(1) BUT BEFORE FILING OF RETURN O F INCOME ON 25/08/2011 UNDER S.139(4) OF THE ACT. IT WAS THUS CLAIMED THA T HER SHARE OF INVESTMENT BEING RS.15 LAKHS BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN IS REQUIRED TO BE ATLEAST ALLOWED WITHOUT ANY DISPUTE. THE ASSESSEE ALSO CONTENDED THAT ANOTHER RS.30 LAKHS WAS PAID BETWEEN SEPTEMBER-2011 TO DECEMBER-2011 AND THEREFORE HAS TO BE CONSIDERED AS INVESTMENT OF CAPITAL GAINS WITHIN TIME LIMIT AVAILABLE UNDER S.1 39(4) OF THE ACT. THE CIT(A) AFTER EXAMINING THE FACTS AND HAVING REGARD TO SECTION 54(2) OF THE ACT OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO HAVE INVESTED TOTAL AMOUNT OF RS.35 LAKHS TOWARDS PURCHASE OF NEW HOUSE OUT OF WHICH 30 LAKHS HAVE BEEN INVESTED AFTER FURNISHING THE RETURN OF I NCOME. THUS, THE CIT(A) CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION TO THE EXTENT OF BALANCE RS.5 LAKHS ONLY UNDER S.54 OF THE ACT. THE CIT(A) ACCORDINGLY GRANTED PARTIAL RELIEF. 6. STILL AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFOR E THE TRIBUNAL. 7. THE LD.AR FOR THE ASSESSEE MR.P.B.KEDIA REITERAT ED THE FACTS AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE SOLD ONE CO-OWNERSHIP R ESIDENTIAL PROPERTY FOR A TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS.1.15 CRORES. THE ASSES SEE RECEIVED HER SHARE IN SALE CONSIDERATION BETWEEN 09/03/2011 TO 25/03 /2011. THE LD.AR SUBMITTED THAT A NEW RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY WAS ACQUI RED BY THE ASSESSEE ITA NO.3154/AHD /2015 ANITA AJAY SHAH VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2011-12 - 5 - JOINTLY ALONG WITH HER HUSBAND FOR A TOTAL CONSIDER ATION OF RS.70 LAKHS. HER OWNERSHIP IN THE JOINT PROPERTY STANDS AT RS.35 LAKHS. IT WAS CLAIMED THAT THE PAYMENT FOR THIS PROPERTY WAS MADE BETWEEN 28/05/2011 TO 15/12/2011. IN SUPPORT OF THE PURCHASE OF THE N EW RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY, THE LD.AR REFERRED TO ALLOTMENT LETTER DA TED 13/02/2012 ISSUED BY THE BUILDER MARUTI FINEBUILD. THE LD.AR SUBMI TTED THAT THE PROPERTY WAS ACQUIRED AND PUT TO USE WITHIN THE PER IOD OF TWO YEARS AND IT WAS THUS PLEADED THAT THE ASSESSEE DESERVES FUL L RELIEF UNDER S.54 AS CLAIMED. THE LD.AR RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF AHM EDABAD BENCH IN ASHOK KAPASIAWALA VS. ITO (2015) 63 TAXAMNN.COM 284 (AHD) AND GOPAL SARAN DARBARI VS. (2017) 77 TAXMANN.COM 49 (D ELHI) TO SUPPORT ITS CLAIM. 8. THE LD.DR FOR THE REVENUE MR.DEEPAK SUTARIA, ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED T HAT IN ORDER TO CLAIM EXEMPTION UNDER S.54 OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE IS RE QUIRED TO FULFILL CERTAIN CONDITIONS STIPULATED THEREIN. THE LD.DR ADVERTED OUR ATTENTION TO SECTION 54(2) OF THE ACT AND SUBMITTED THAT THE AMO UNT OF CAPITAL GAIN WHICH IS NOT APPROPRIATED BY THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS P URCHASE OF NEW RESIDENTIAL HOUSE BEFORE THE DATE OF FURNISHING OF RETURN OF INCOME OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN DEPOSITED IN THE DESIGNATED ACCOUNT IN SPECIFIED BANK OR INSTITUTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH CAPITAL GAINS ACCO UNTS SCHEME 1988 ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME U NDER S.139(1) OF THE ITA NO.3154/AHD /2015 ANITA AJAY SHAH VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2011-12 - 6 - ACT. THE LD.DR SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ALREA DY GRANTED THE RELIEF OF RS.5 LAKHS TOWARDS HER CONTRIBUTION IN PURCHASE OF NEW ASSET AS ELIGIBLE TO THE ASSESSEE HAVING REGARD TO THE PROVI SIONS OF SECTION 54(2) OF THE ACT. THE LD.DR ACCORDINGLY PLEADED THAT NO INT ERFERENCE WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS CALLED FOR. 9. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIO NS AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS CONTROVERTED THE DENIAL OF EXEMPTION CLAIMED UN DER S.54 OF THE ACT TOWARDS CAPITAL GAIN ARISING ON SALE OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. SECTION 54 INTER ALIA PROVIDES THAT CAPITAL GAIN INVESTED IN THE PURCHAS E OF RESIDENTIAL HOUSE WILL BE EXEMPT FROM TAX. ALTHOUG H, AS PER SECTION 54, THE ASSESSEE IS GIVEN TWO YEARS FOR PURCHASE OF HOU SE PROPERTY (OR THREE YEARS FOR CONSTRUCTION THEREOF) YET THE TAXABLE EVE NT OF CAPITAL GAINS ON TRANSFER OF ORIGINAL HOUSE PROPERTY IS THE YEAR IN WHICH IT IS SOLD. IN TERMS OF S.54(2), HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE MAY AT HIS DISCRETION INVEST THE CAPITAL GAINS BEFORE THE FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME TO AVOID INCIDENCE OF TAX. SECTION 54(2) INTER ALIA SPECIFIES AN ALTERNATIVE IN THE FORM OF DEPOSIT UNDER CAPITAL GAIN ACCOUNTS SCHEME BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME UNDER S.139(1) OF THE ACT. THU S, THE AMOUNT OF CAPITAL GAINS WHICH IS NOT UTILIZED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR PURCHASE OR CONSTRUCTION OF NEW HOUSE BEFORE THE DATE OF FURNIS HING OF RETURN OF ITA NO.3154/AHD /2015 ANITA AJAY SHAH VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2011-12 - 7 - INCOME OUGHT TO BE DEPOSITED BY HIM UNDER THE CAPI TAL GAINS ACCOUNTS SCHEME BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FURNISHING THE RETURN . 9.1. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS TO HAVE UTILIZED RS.15 LAKHS (50% OF RS.30 LAKHS INVESTED TOWARDS PURCHASE OF NE W RESIDENTIAL HOUSE) BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME. THE ASSESSEE SIMULTANEOUSLY CLAIMS THAT ANOTHER RS.5 LAKHS (50% OF RS.10 LAKHS SIMILARLY INVESTED) HAS BEEN INVESTED IN THE RESIDE NTIAL PROPERTY BEFORE THE ACTUAL FILING OF THE RETURN ON 25/08/2011 I.E. WITHIN THE TIME LIMIT PROVIDED UNDER S.139(4) OF THE ACT. 9.2. SECTION 54(2) ENJOINS THAT THE CAPITAL GAIN IS REQUIRED TO BE APPROPRIATED BY THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS PURCHASE OF NE W ASSET BEFORE FURNISHING OF RETURN OF INCOME UNDER S.139 OF THE ACT. ALTERNATIVELY, IN THE EVENT OF NON-UTILIZATION OF CAPITAL GAINS TOWAR DS PURCHASE OF NEW ASSET, THE ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED TO DEPOSIT THE CAPI TAL GAINS IN SPECIFIED BANK ACCOUNT BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETUR N OF INCOME UNDER S.139(1) OF THE ACT. ANY PAYMENT TOWARDS PURCHASE SUBSEQUENT TO THE FURNISHING OF RETURN OF INCOME (25/08/2011 IN THE INSTANT CASE) BUT BEFORE THE LAST DATE AVAILABLE TO FILE THE RETURN OF INCOME UNDER S.139(4) OF THE ACT IS IRRELEVANT. SUCH SUBSEQUENT PAYMENTS AFTER FILING OF RETURN ARE REQUIRED TO BE ROUTED OUT OF DEPOSITS MADE IN C APITAL GAIN ACCOUNT SCHEME. THUS, THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE THAT UTILIZ ATION OF CAPITAL GAIN CAN ITA NO.3154/AHD /2015 ANITA AJAY SHAH VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2011-12 - 8 - BE MADE BEFORE THE EXTENDED DATE FOR FILING OF RET URN OF INCOME UNDER S.139(4) OF THE ACT EVEN AFTER FILING OF RETURN DO NOT COINCIDE WITH THE PLAIN LANGUAGE EMPLOYED UNDER S.54(2) OF THE ACT. NONETHELESS, THE CAPITAL GAIN EMPLOYED TOWARDS PURCHASE OF NEW ASSET BEFORE THE ACTUAL DATE OF FURNISHING RETURN OF INCOME EITHER UNDER S. 139(1) OR UNDER S.139(4) OF THE ACT WILL BE DEEMED TO BE SUFFICIENT COMPLIANCE OF SECTION 54(2) OF THE ACT. 9.3. THE ASSESSEE, IN THE INSTANT CASE, DOES NOT C LAIM TO HAVE DEPOSITED THE MONEY IN THESE SPECIFIED BANK ACCOUNT UNDER CAP ITAL GAIN SCHEME AT ALL. THEREFORE, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS REQUI RED TO BE WEIGHED ON THE SECOND LIMB OF SECTION 54(2) OF THE ACT, I.E. WHETH ER THE CAPITAL GAIN HAS BEEN UTILIZED FOR PURCHASE OF NEW ASSET BEFORE THE DATE OF FURNISHING OF RETURN OF INCOME UNDER S.139 OF THE ACT. AT THIS J UNCTURE, WE NOTICE THAT THE LEGISLATURE IN ITS OWN WISDOM HAS USED THE EXP RESSION SECTION 139 FOR PURCHASE ETC. OF NEW ASSET WHILE ON THE OTHER HAND, TIME LIMIT UNDER SECTION 139(1) HAS BEEN SPECIFIED FOR DEPOSIT IN TH E CAPITAL GAIN ACCOUNT SCHEME. WHEN VIEWED LIBERALLY, THE DISTINCTION BET WEEN THE TWO DIFFERENT FORM OF EXPRESSION OF TIME LIMIT CAN YIE LD DIFFERENT RESULTS. S.139 ENCOMPASSES BOTH S.139(1) AND S.139(4) OF THE ACT. THERE IS PRESUMPTION THAT WORDS ARE USED IN AN ACT OF PARLIA MENT CORRECTLY AND EXACTLY AND NOT LOOSELY AND INEXACTLY. IN THE PRES ENT CASE, WE ARE CONCERNED WITH THE UTILIZATION OF CAPITAL GAIN TOWA RDS PURCHASE OF NEW ITA NO.3154/AHD /2015 ANITA AJAY SHAH VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2011-12 - 9 - ASSET FOR WHICH THE LEGISLATURE HAS STOPPED SHORT B Y MAKING REFERENCE OF SECTION 139 OF THE ACT IN VARIATION TO 139 (1) OF T HE ACT FOR DEPOSIT IN CAPITAL GAIN SCHEME. THIS DISTINCTION ASSUMES SIG NIFICANCE FOR INTERPRETATION OF BENEFICIAL PROVISION. THUS, A B ENEFICIAL VIEW MAY BE TAKEN TO SAY THAT SECTION 139 BEING OMNIBUS WOUL D ALSO COVER EXTENDED TIME LIMIT PROVIDED UNDER S.139(4) OF THE ACT. THU S, WHEN AN ASSESSEE FURNISHES RETURN SUBSEQUENT TO DUE DATE OF FILING R ETURN UNDER S.139(1) BUT WITHIN THE EXTENDED TIME LIMIT UNDER S.139(4), THE BENEFIT OF INVESTMENT MADE UPTO THE DATE OF FURNISHING RETURN OF INCOME U NDER 139(4) CANNOT BE DENIED ON SUCH BENEFICIAL CONSTRUCTION. HOWEVER, A NY INVESTMENT MADE AFTER THE FURNISHING OF RETURN OF INCOME BUT BEFORE EXTENDED DATE AVAILABLE UNDER S.139(4) WOULD NOT RECEIVE BENEFICI AL CONSTRUCTION IN VIEW OF UNAMBIGUOUS AND EXPRESS PROVISION OF S.54(2 ) OF THE ACT. THE SUGGESTION ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE ON ELIGIBILITY OF PAYMENTS SUBSEQUENT TO FURNISHING OF RETURN OF INCOME IS NOT ALIGNED WITH AND MILITATES AGAINST THE PLAIN PROVISION OF LAW CERTIF IED IN S.54(2) OF THE ACT. 9.4. IN THE LIGHT OF THE MANDATE OF SECTION 54(2) AS NOTED ABOVE, WE SHALL NOW TURN TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE. IT IS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT RS.40 LAKHS IN AGGREGATE HAS BEEN UTILIZED TOWARDS PURCHASE OF NEW ASSET BEFORE FURNISHING THE RETURN OF INCOME UNDER S.139( 4) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS TO HAVE INVESTED RS.20 LAKHS (BEIN G OF HER SHARE) FOR PURCHASE OF NEW ASSET. HOWEVER, WE NOTICE THAT AS SESSEE APPEARS TO ITA NO.3154/AHD /2015 ANITA AJAY SHAH VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2011-12 - 10 - HAVE SHOWN A TOTAL INVESTMENT RS.50 LAKHS IN AGGREG ATE I.E. 30 LAKHS FROM PERSONAL ACCOUNT AND RS.20 LAKHS ( SHARE) FROM JOI NT ACCOUNT AS AGAINST HER OBLIGATION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.35 LAKHS ONLY. ALSO AMBIGUITY EXISTS ON RECORD AS TO WHETHER THE OTHER JOINT OWNER (HUSB AND OF THE ASSESSEE) HAS AVAILED CLAIM OF EXEMPTION, IF ANY, UPTO RS.20 LAKHS (BEING OF HIS SHARE ONLY) OR ENTIRE RS.40 LAKHS MADE THROUGH JO INT ACCOUNT TOWARDS PURCHASE IN HIS OWN RIGHT. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ASSESSEE, IN OUR VIEW, WOULD BE ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.20 LAKHS BEING 50% OF HER SHARE IN THE UTILIZATION OF CAPITAL GAIN SUBJECT TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE AO THAT THE AFORESAID CLAIM OF PAYMENTS FROM JOINT ACCOUNT HAS NOT BEEN SIMULTANEOUSLY AVAILED BY OTHE R JOINT OWNER ALSO. 9.5 THE OTHER PORTION ON THE INVESTMENT CLAIMED F ROM THE PERSONAL ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE IS STATED TO HAVE BEEN MADE AFTER FURNISHING THE RETURN OF INCOME BUT BEFORE EXTENDED THE DUE DATE O F FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME. HOWEVER, AS NOTED ABOVE, ONCE THE RETURN HAS BEEN FURNISHED, THE SUBSEQUENT PAYMENTS MADE TOWARDS PURCHASE WOUL D NOT BE ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION UNLESS THE SAME WAS FIRST DEPOSITED I N CAPITAL GAIN ACCOUNT SCHEME AND UTILIZED THEREFROM. THEREFORE, THE ASS ESSEE IS ENTITLED TO RELIEF TO THE EXTENT OF RS.20 LAKHS ONLY OUT OF IN DEXED CAPITAL GAIN SUBJECT, HOWEVER, TO THE NECESSARY VERIFICATION OF THE CLAIM OF THE OTHER JOINT-OWNER AS NOTED ABOVE. THE DECISION RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT SPELL ANYTHING DIFFERENT. ITA NO.3154/AHD /2015 ANITA AJAY SHAH VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2011-12 - 11 - 10. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING DISCUSSION, THE ISSUE IS SET ASIDE AND REMANDED BACK TO THE FILE OF AO FOR THE LIMITED PUR POSE OF VERIFICATION OF EXTENT OF CLAIM MADE BY OTHER JOINT-OWNER ON PAYME NT OF RS.40 LAKHS TOWARDS PURCHASE MADE OUT OF JOINT BANK ACCOUNT AS ELABORATED EARLIER. THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE AT LIBERTY TO ADDUCE THE NECE SSARY EVIDENCES IN THIS REGARD AND REMOVE PREVAILING AMBIGUITY. 11. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D IN PART FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 18 / 09 /2017 () ( ) (RAJPAL YADAV) ( PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 18 / 09 /2017 3..),.)../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS !'#$%$' / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. #% / THE APPELLANT 2. &#% / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 456+ 7+ / CONCERNED CIT 4. 7+ ( ) / THE CIT(A)-AHMEDABAD 5. 5. 89:+)56 , 56/ , 4 / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. :<* / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, &8++ //TRUE COPY// / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD