I.T.O. Ward -1(1), RAIPUR (CG) V. SMT SHEELA CHAKOLE, RAIPUR

ITA 394/BIL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8949 (ITAT-RAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-01-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 23-12-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MRS SHEETAL VERMA
• Section: 143(3); 54F; 54

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE S/SHRI N.S SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.394/RPR/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-2012 ITO WARD-1(1), RAIPUR VS. SHEELA CHAKOLE, DESHBANDHU PRESS COMPLEX, RAMASAGARPARA, RAIPUR PAN/GIR NO. APPPC 6726 F (APPELLANT ) .. ( RESPONDENT ) REVENUE BY : MRS. SHEETAL VERMA, DR ASSESSEE BY : NONE DATE OF HEARING : 18/01/ 2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19 /01/ 2018 O R D E R PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE OR DER OF THE CIT(A)- RAIPUR, DATED 27.10.2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20110- 2012. 2. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APP EAL:- WHETHER IN LAW AND ON FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, TH E CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING THE DEDUCTION U/S. 54F A MOUNTING TO RS.47,45,000/- NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT THE DEPOSI T IN THE CAPITAL GAIN ACCOUNT WAS MADE BEYOND THE TIME LIMIT. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN I NDIVIDUAL DERIVING INCOME FROM INTEREST AND OTHER INCOME. THE RE TURN OF INCOME WAS FILED ON 27.02.2013 DECLARING INCOME OF RS.3,07,900/-. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE 2 ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(3) OF THE I.T. ACT 1961 O N 24.02.2014, DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS.51,68,400/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD A LAND LOCATED AT DEOP URI. RAIPUR AT A SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.75,08,000/- VIDE REGISTERED SAL E DEED DATED 5.1.2011. THE ASSESSEE FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME BELATE DLY ON 27.02.2013, BEYOND THE DUE DATE OF FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME 1 39(1) OF THE ACT. IN THE RETURN OF INCOME, THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED EXEMPTION U/S 54 F AMOUNTING TO RS.47,45,000/- CLAIMING IT TO BE DEPOSITED IN CAPITAL G AIN ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OPINED THAT THE DATE OF DEPOSIT INTO A SPECIFIED CAPITAL GAIN ACCOUNT WAS 08.11,2011 WHICH WAS BEYOND THE DUE DAT E OF FILING OF RETURN U/S 139(1). IN RESPONSE TO ASSESSING OFFICERS QUERY , THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED A LETTER DATED 20.1.2014, THE CONTENTS OF WH ICH ARE REPRODUCED AT PAGE 2 OF THE ORDER. THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THAT OUT O F TOTAL SALE CONSIDERATION, SHE HAS PURCHASED AN AGRICULTURAL LAND ON 11.3.2011 AT A CONSIDERATION OF RS.52,865/- AND INVESTED RS.15,97,374/- FOR PURCHASE OF A RESIDENTIAL PLOT AT RAIPUR ON 28.3.2011 AND THAT HAS INVESTED AROUND RS.14,00,000/- PAID TO CONTRACTOR FOR CONSTRUCTION OF HOU SE. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE IRRESPECTIVE OF THE FACT THAT T HE AMOUNT WAS INVESTED IN THE CAPITAL GAIN ACCOUNT, BUT SAME SHOULD HA VE BEEN INVESTED BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME U /S.139(1) OF THE ACT. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED THIS AMOUNT IN THE CAPITAL GAIN ACCOUNT IN 3 UNION BANK OF INDIA, RAIPUR ON 8.11.2011, THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER HAS DENIED EXEMPTION U/S.54F AND ASSESSED THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS.51,6 8,400/- BY ORDER DATED 24.2.2014 U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). 5. BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMIS SIONS MADE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR CLAIMING EXEMPTION U/S. 54F OF THE ACT. LD A.R. ALSO EMPHASIZED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS COMPLIED ALL THE CONDITIONS REQUIRED U/S.54F OF THE ACT. WHEREAS THE CIT(A) HAS CONSIDERED THE FINDINGS OF THE A SSESSING OFFICER AND SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE AT PARA 4.5 OF THE ORDER AND FI NALLY DECIDED THE DISPUTED ISSUE RELYING ON THE JUDICIAL DECISIONS AND DIRE CTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DELETION OF ADDITION. 6. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THE REVENU E HAS FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 7. LD D.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALL OWING DEDUCTION U/S. 54F OF THE ACT IRRESPECTIVE OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DEPOSITED THE CONSIDERATION IN THE CAPITAL GAIN SCHEME ACCOUNT WITHI N THE DUE DATE U/S.139(1) OF THE ACT AND PRAYED FOR ALLOWING THE APP EAL OF THE REVENUE. 4 8. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT ASSESSEE. HENCE, WE DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE EXPARTE QUA THE RESPONDENT ASSESSEE AFTER HEARING LD D.R. AND ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL A VAILABLE ON RECORD. 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE OR DERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES AND MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. PRIMA FACIE, THE DISPUTE ARISEN WITH RESPECT TO DEPOSIT OF SALE CONSIDERATION IN CAPITAL G AINS ACCOUNT BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME U/S.139(1 ) OF THE ACT. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 54F IS VERY CLEAR IN RESPECT OF CLAI M OF EXEMPTION AND THE ASSESSEE HAVING SATISFIED THE CONDITIONS HAS CLAIMED EXE MPTION BUT THE FACT REMAINS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT DOUBTED THE DEPOSIT OF CAPITAL GAIN NOR THE SALE CONSIDERATION BUT ONLY DISPUTED THAT THE AMOUNT HAS BEEN DEPOSITED BEYOND THE DUE DATE U/S.139(1) OF THE ACT. WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE PROVISIONS OF CAPITAL GAINS OF INVESTMENT IN H OUSE PROPERTY HAVE TO BE CONSIDERED LIBERALLY AND THE FACT REMAINS THAT THE ASSESSEE REINVESTED THE AMOUNT IN RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. WE SUPPORT OUR DECISIO N THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED THE CAPITAL GAIN AFTER DUE DATE, B UT THE PROPERTY HAS TO BE COMPLETED WITHIN A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS FROM T HE DATE OF TRANSFER AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT DISPUTED ON THIS. THOUGH TH ERE IS DELAY IN DEPOSITING THE CAPITAL GAIN, THE ASSESSEE HAS COMPLETED THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. CONSIDERING THE APPARENT FACT AND MATERIA LS ON RECORD, WE ARE OF 5 THE OPINION THAT THE CIT(A) HAS CORRECTLY DEALT ON TH E ISSUE AND PASSED A REASONED ORDER, WHICH WE DECLINE TO INTERFERE. 10. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DIS MISSED. SD/- SD/- (N.S SAINI) ( PAVAN KUMAR GADALE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIALMEMBER RAIPUR; DATED 19 /01/2018 B.K.PARIDA, SPS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : BY ORDER, SR.PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, RAIPUR 1. THE APPELLANT : ITO WARD-1(1), RAIPUR 2. THE RESPONDENT. SHEELA CHAKOLE, DESHBANDHU PRESS COMPLEX, RAMASAGARPARA, RAIPUR 3. THE CIT(A)- RAIPUR 4. PR.CIT-RAIPUR 5. DR, ITAT, RAIPUR 6. GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY//