Smt. Chhayaben Mahendrabhai Patel, Ahmedabad V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2)(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 360/AHD/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8691 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-08-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 12-02-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ILA PARMAR
• Section: 54F; 139

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO. 360 /AHD/201 6 ASSESSMENT Y EAR: 20 1 2 - 13 PAGE 1 OF 2 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AHMEDABAD SMC BENCH, AHMEDABAD [CORAM : PRAMOD KUMAR AM ] I.T.A. NO. 360 /AHD/201 6 ASSESSMENT Y EAR : 20 1 2 - 13 CHHAYABEN MAHENDRABHAI PATEL, ....... ...........APPELLANT 8, RAMYAKUNJ SOCIETY, NARODA, AHMEDABAD . [ PAN : A KIPP 3233 C ] VS. INCOME T AX OFFICER , WAD 7(2)(1), AHMEDABAD . ............................RESPONDENT APPEARANCES BY: NONE FOR THE APPELLANT ILA PARMAR FOR THE RESPONDENT DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : 2 4 . 08 .2017 DATE OF PRONOUN CING THE ORDER : 28 . 08 . 2017 O R D E R 1. THIS APPEAL , FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, IS DIRECTED AGAINST LEARNED CIT(A) S ORDER DATED 5 TH SEPTEMBER 2015 , FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012 - 13. 2. GRIEVANCE OF THE APPELLANT IS THAT THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING O FFICER OF STATUTORY DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE ACT, AMOUNTING TO RS.15,00,000/ - 3. I HAVE HEARD THE LEANED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. 4. I HAVE NOTED THAT THE ASSESSING O FFICER HAS DECLINED SECTION 54F BENEFIT TO THE ASSESSEE, IN COMPUTAT ION OF TAXABLE CAPITAL GAINS, E VEN THOUGH THE INVESTMENT WAS MADE IN THE NEW RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY WITHIN PRESCRIBED LIMIT, A S THE AMOUNT WAS NOT KEPT IN A SEPARATE ACCOUNT BEFORE THE TIME LIMIT FOR FILING OF INCOME TAX RETURN UNDER SECTION 139(1) EXPIRED. THIS OBJECTION IS NOT VALID FOR TWO REASONS FIRST, BECAUSE, AS HELD BY I.T.A. NO. 360 /AHD/201 6 ASSESSMENT Y EAR: 20 1 2 - 13 PAGE 2 OF 2 HON BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS . K . R AMACHANDRA RAO [(2015) 120 DTR 72 (KAR)], IN A CASE IN WHICH INVESTMENT IS MADE IN THE NEW RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY WITHIN PRESCRIBED TIME LIMIT, THIS REQUIREMENT OF KEEPING THE MONEY IN SPECIFIED ACCOUNT DOES NOT COME INTO PLAY; AND SECOND, BECAUSE , AS HELD BY HON BLE PUNJAB & H ARYANA HIGH COURT, IN THE CASE OF CIT V S . JAGRITI AGGARW A L [(2011) 339 ITR 610 (P&H)], TIME LIMIT REFERRED TO SECTION 54F COVERS TIME LIMIT UNDER SECTION 139 (4) AS WELL. I HAVE NOTED THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE RELIED UPON THE T RIBUNAL DECISION IN TH E CASE OF ITO V S. ROSAMMA KORAH [(2015) 171 TTJ 692 (COCHIN)] BUT THE TRIBUNAL DID NOT HAVE BENEFIT OF HON BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT S VIEWS IN THE CASE OF K . RAMAC H ANDRA RO (SUPRA). IN THE HIERARCHICAL JUDICIAL SYSTEM THAT WE HAVE, THE DIRECT DECISIONS OF HON BLE C OURTS ABOVE ARE TO BE FOLLOWED BY THE TRIBUNAL. I DO SO AND UPHOLD THE THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE. I DIRECT THE A SSESSING O FFICER TO DELETE THE IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE. 5 . IN THE RESULT, THE APP E AL IS ALLOWED . PR O NOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY ON THE 28 TH DAY OF AUGUST 2017. SD/ - PRAMOD KUMAR (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) DATED: AHMEDABAD, THE 28 TH DAY OF AUGUST , 2017. PBN/* COPIES TO : (1) THE APPELLANT (2) THE RESPONDENT (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) DR (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCHES, AHMEDABAD