Rajani Reddy Inturi , Hyderabad V. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-14(1), Hyderabad

ITA 4/Hyd/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 109 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0772 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-03-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-A
• Next Hearing Date: 08-02-2021
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 02-01-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: B SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
• Keywords: Capital asset; Source of fund; Question of law; Capital Gains
• Section: 54F; 205

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES A : HYDERABAD (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE) BEFORE SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO.4/HYD/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 SMT. RAJANI REDDY INTURI, HYDERABAD [PAN: AAJPI5112N] VS ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-14(1), HYDERABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE : SHRI B.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, AR FOR REVENUE : SHRI SUNIL KUMAR PANDEY, DR DATE OF HEARING : 10-02-2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 08-03-2021 O R D E R PER S.S.GODARA, J.M. : THIS ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR AY.2012-13 ARISES FROM TH E CIT(A)-6, HYDERABADS ORDER DATED 29-10-2018 PASSED IN CASE NO.10214/2017-18/A3/CIT(A)-6, IN PROCEEDINGS U/S.14 3(3) R.W.S.147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 [IN SHORT, THE A CT]. HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. CASE FILE PERUSED. ITA NO. 4/HYD/2019 :- 2 -: 2. THE ASSESSEES SOLE SUBSTANTIVE GRIEVANCE RAISED I N THE INSTANT APPEAL CHALLENGES CORRECTNESS OF BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ACTION DISALLOWING SECTION 54F CLAIM IN R ESPECT OF ALLEGED INVESTMENT OF RS.63,90,560/- IN RESIDENTIAL HOUSE/PROPERTY AT MAGADHA VILLAGE, HYDERABAD. THE CIT(A) IN HIS LOWER APPELLATE DISCUSSION TO THIS EFFECT READS AS FOLLOWS: 7.1 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE CONTENTIONS RAISED BY TH E ASSESSEE AND EXAMINED THE SAME IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACTS AND CIR CUMSTANCES. AT THE OUTSET, IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THERE IS NO DI SPUTE WITH REGARD TO FACTS OF THE CASE. TO BE PRECISE, ON ACCOUNT OF ENT ERING INTO A JDA 'CUM GPA IN RESPECT OF PLOT OF LAND HELD IN THE NAM E OF ASSESSEE WITH M/S. WESTERN CONSTRUCTIONS, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT RE CEIVE ANY MONETARY CONSIDERATION. ON THE OTHER HAND, IN THE P ROJECT DEVELOPED THEREOF, I.E., 'WESTERN PEARL', THE ASSESSEE RECEIV ED BUILT UP AREA OF COMMERCIAL SPACE ADMEASURING 19,878 SQ.FT. CONSISTI NG OF 1200 SQ. FT. IN GROUND FLOOR AND 1 ST FLOOR EACH AND 17,478 SQ.FT. IN 10 TH FLOOR. 7.2 AS SUCH, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT HAVING ANY FUNDS IN HER HANDS RECEIVED ON ACCOUNT OF SAID TRANSFER IN ORDER TO MA KE INVESTMENT IN THE NEW ASSET. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE ASSESSEE CLAI MED TO HAVE MADE INVESTMENT TOWARDS CONSTRUCTION OF NEW ASSET T O THE EXTENT OF RS.63,90,560/- DURING THE PERIOD 13.07.2011 TO 02.0 6.2012 I.E., ON OR BEFORE DUE DATE FOR FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME U/S.139(1) OF THE ACT FOR THE IMPUGNED AY 2012-13. IN THIS REGARD, DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE FILED A STATEM ENT SHOWING AMOUNTS PAID FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE NEW ASSET I.E. , HOUSE PROPERTY AT MAGADHA VILLAGE IN THE FORM OF ANNEXURE 1 TO THE AS SESSEES LETTER DATED 24.04.2017, ADDRESSED TO THE AO. A SCANNED C OPY OF THE SAME IS GIVEN BELOW FOR READY REFERENCE: ITA NO. 4/HYD/2019 :- 3 -: ITA NO. 4/HYD/2019 :- 4 -: 7.3 AS SEEN FROM THE ABOVE SCANNED COPY CONSISTING OF DETAILS OF SOURCES OF INVESTMENT MADE TOWARDS CONSTRUCTION OF PROPERTY, ONLY A SUM OF RS. 6,43,300/-, BEING AGGREGATE AMOUNT WITHD RAWN FROM THE BANK ACCOUNTS HELD IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE, WAS PAID OUT OF THE ASSESSEE'S OWN FUNDS OR SOURCES OF INCOME AND THE B ALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.57,47,260/- WAS PAID FROM THE BANK ACCOUNTS H ELD IN THE NAME OF MR. I. VENKATESWARLU INDEPENDENTLY & JOINTLY WIT H THE ASSESSEE AND MR.I.PRADEEP. AS SUCH, IT IS CLEARLY EVIDENT TH AT THE ASSESSEE MADE INVESTMENT TOWARDS NEW ASSET FROM HER OWN FUND S OR SOURCES ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF RS.6,43,300/-. 7.4 AT THIS JUNCTURE, IT IS ALSO IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF NEW ASSET CONSTRUCTED SUCH AS DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY, TOTAL EXTENT OF LAND A ND BUILT UP AREA, DATE OF PLAN APPROVAL ALONG WITH COPY OF APPROVED P LAN, TOTAL AMOUNT OF INVESTMENT MADE, DATE OF COMPLETION OF THE PROPE RTY, OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE/COMPLETION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE MU NICIPAL AUTHORITIES CONCERNED, IF ANY, ETC. ACCORDINGLY, THERE IS NO CL ARITY WITH REGARD TO GENUINENESS OF INVESTMENT MADE IN THE NEW ASSET AND DATE OF COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION OF SUCH NEW ASSET. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, PRIMA FACIE, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT AT ALL ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM EXEMPTION ULS.54F OF THE ACT AS SHE HAS FAILED TO FULFIL THE BASIC REQUIREMENTS STI PULATED THEREOF. 7.5 BE THAT AS IT MAY, FOR ARGUMENT SAKE, IF IT CON SIDERED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO CLAIM EXEMPTION U/S.54F OF THE ACT, THEN THE MOOT QUESTION TO BE ANSWERED IS- WHETHER THERE SHOU LD HE DIRECT NEXUS BETWEEN THE SALE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED/RECEI VABLE ON SALE OF ORIGINAL ASSET, AND THE INVESTMENT MADE IN THE NEW ASSET. 7.6 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON THE ASSESSEE AND STUDIED THE PRESENT POSITION OF LAW ON THIS ISSUE A S HELD BY VARIOUS COURTS. IT IS TRUE THAT THERE NEED NOT BE DIRECT NE XUS BETWEEN THE SALE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED! RECEIVABLE ON THE SALE OF T HE PROPERTY I.E., ORIGINAL ASSET AND INVESTMENT IN NEW ASSET, BUT AT THE SAME TIME THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT MADE SHOULD BE OUT OF THE ASSE SSEE'S OWN INCOME/FUNDS RATHER THAN BORROWED FUNDS OR FUNDS BE LONGING TO OTHER PERSONS. ON THE OTHER HAND, IN THE INSTANT CASE, TH E ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED TO HAVE MADE INVESTMENT OUT OF THE FUNDS RE CEIVED FROM OUTSIDE PARTIES. IN THIS REGARD, RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS. 1. KAUSHAL KISHORE MAHESHWARI VS [2017] 85 TAXMANN. COM 205 (DELHI-TRIB.) IN THIS CASE, HON'BLE ITAT HAS BEEN HELD THAT INVES TMENT MADE IN THE NEW ASSET I.E., PURCHASE OF RESIDENTIAL HOUSE OUT O F LOAN TAKEN FROM BANK IN THE NAME OF WIFE IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS JOINED ONLY FOR ITA NO. 4/HYD/2019 :- 5 -: THE PURPOSE OF REPAYMENT, IT CANNOT BE CONSTRUED TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE INVESTMENT OF SALE PROCEEDS OF PLOT OF LAN D FOR PURCHASE OF RESIDENTIAL HOUSE AND, THUS, ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENTIT LED TO DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE ACT. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE DECISION IS REPRODUCED BELOW FOR READY REFERENCE: '5.3.6 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DECISION, WHAT IS IMPOR TANT IS THAT FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE ACT THAT INVESTMENT IN THE NEW PROPERTY HAS TO BE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. BUT IN THE PRESENT CASE BEFOR E US, THOUGH THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN PURCHASED IN THE NAME OF THE WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE BUT THE INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN MADE OUT OF THE LOAN SANCTIONED TO THE WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSE SSEE HAS JOINED NAME IN THE LOAN SANCTION LETTER. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ISSUE BEFORE US IS WHETHER THE INVESTMENT IN THE NEW PROPERLY CAN BE T REATED AS INVESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND THAT THE WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDEPENDENT TAXPAYER HAVING HER OWN SOURCES OF INCO ME. WE ALSO FIND THAT PROPERTY HAS BEEN PURCHASED EXCLUSIVELY IN THE NAME OF THE WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE IS NOT CO-OWNER OF THE PR OPERTY. THE BANK HAS SANCTIONED LOAN FOR PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY, WHICH IS PURCHASED IN THE NAME OF WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAI MED THAT THE LOAN HAS BEEN SANCTIONED IN THE JOINT NAME OF THE WIFE OF TH E ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE. IN OUR OPINION, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE INVESTMENT FOR PURCHASE OF THE PR OPERTY DUE TO THE REASON THAT LOAN HAS BEEN PRIMARILY SANCTIONED TO T HE WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE, WHO IS HAVING TITLE OVER THE-PROPERTY AND THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN JOINED IN THE LOAN FOR THE PURPOSE OF REPAYMENT OF THE LOAN. THE REPAYMENT OF LOAN BY THE ASSESSEE.IS A TRANSACTION DIFFERENT FROM THE TRANSACTION OF INVESTMENT IN THE PROPERTY. MOREOVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SUBMITTED ANY EVIDENCE OF REPAYMENT OF LOAN BY HIM. THUS, WE CONC LUDE THAT INVESTMENT IN THE NEW PROPERTY WORTH RS. 1,30,31,250/- HAS NOT BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTAN CES, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT FINDING OF THE LD.CIT-(A) WITH REGARD TO THE INVESTMENT OF RS.1,30,31,250/- IN NEW PROPERTY-IS WELL REASONED A ND WE DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR IN THE SAID FINDING AND ACCORDINGLY UPHOLD DI SALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF THE SAID INVESTMENT OF RS.1,30,31,250/- (EMPHASIS SUPPLIED) 2. T.RAMESH VS.ITO (TS-7189-1TAT-2017(CHENNAI)-01: IN THIS CASE, HON'BLE ITAT HAS HELD THAT WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAD BORROWED FUNDS TO REINVEST IN NEW ASSET, THE ASSESS EE SHOULD HAVE REPAID THE SAME WITH THE SALE CONSIDERATION HE HAS RECEIVED I.E., THE ASSESSEE SHOULD ESTABLISH DIRECT NEXUS BETWEEN THE CAPITAL GAINS/NET CONSIDERATION RECEIVED AND REINVEST MADE IN THE NEW ASSET. ITA NO. 4/HYD/2019 :- 6 -: 3. MILAN SHARAD RUPAREL VS ACIT, [2010] 5 ITR(1) 5 70 (MUMBAI): IN THIS CASE, THE HON'BLE ITAT HAS -, HELD THAT IN CASE THE ASSESSEE CONSTRUCTS OR PURCHASES A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE OUT OF BORROWED FUNDS, HE IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION U/S.54F OF THE ACT. W HILE DOING SO, IT IS OBSERVED BY THE HON'BLE ITAT THAT THE FISCAL PROVIS IONS ARE TO BE CONSTRUCTED IN SUCH A MANNER SO THAT INTENTION OF L EGISLATURE BEHIND INTRODUCTION OF SUCH PROVISIONS WOULD BE ACHIEVED. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE DECISION IS REPRODUCED BELOW FOR REA DY REFERENCE: '19. IT IS WELL-SETTLED THAT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY S HOULD EITHER BE ACQUIRED OR CONSTRUCTED BY THE ASSESSEE OUT OF HIS PERSONAL FUN DS OR THE SALE PROCEEDS OF THE CAPITAL ASSET ON WHICH DEDUCTION UN DERSECTION 54F IS CLAIMED. IF THE ASSESSEE CONSTRUCTS OR PURCHASES A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE OUT OF THE BORROWED FUNDS, HE IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR A DED UCTION UNDER SECTION 54F. IF IT IS NOT CONSTRUED IN SUCH A MANNER THE OBJECT OF INTRODUCTION OF THE BENEFICIAL PROVISIONS WOULD BE FRUSTRATED. THE FISC AL PROVISIONS ARE TO BE CONSTRUCTED IN SUCH A MANNER, SO THAT ITS OBJECTS O F INTRODUCTION CAN BE ACHIEVED. 20. IN THE INSTANT CASE, SALE PROCEEDS OF THE CAPIT AL ASSETS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE UTILIZED OR APPROPRIATED FOR DIFFEREN T PURPOSE AND THE ASSESSEE HAD 110 PERSONAL FUNDS TO ACQUIRE A RESIDE NTIAL HOUSE WHICH WAS PURCHASED FROM THE LOAN BORROWED FROM BANK, AS ADMI TTED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING. IN SUCH CIRC UMSTANCES, SINCE THE SALE PROCEEDS OR THE CAPITAL GAIN ACCRUED TO THE AS SESSEE HAD NOT BEEN WHOLLY APPROPRIATED TOWARDS THE PURCHASE OF THE RES IDENTIAL. HOUSE WITHIN A SPECIFIED PERIOD, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENTITLED T O CLAIM EXEMPTION OF WHOLE CAPITAL GAIN UNDER SECTION 54F. WHATEVER AMOU NT WAS UTILIZED IN PURCHASE OF A RESIDENTIAL-HOUSE, THE CORRESPONDING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54F WAS TO BE ALLOWED AND THE REVENUE AUTHO RITIES HAD ALREADY ALLOWED THE CORRESPONDING EXEMPTION TO THE ASSESSEE . THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER ( APPEALS) AND THE SAME WAS TO BE CONFIRMED ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS TO BE DISMISSED' (EMPHASIS SUPPLIED) 7.7 AS SEEN FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS CLEARLY HELD BY T HE HON'BLE ITAT THAT EXEMPTION U/S.54F OF THE ACT CANNOT BE ALLOWED IN R ESPECT OF INVESTMENT MADE IN THE NEW ASSET OUT OF BORROWED FU NDS. ON OTHER HAND, IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS, IT IS STATED BY T HE AR OF THE ASSESSEE THAT EXEMPTION U1S.54F OF THE ACT IN RESPE CT OF PURCHASE OF RESIDENTIAL HOUSE OUT OF BORROWED MONEY FROM BANK H AS BEEN ALLOWED BY THE HON'BLE ITAT, MUMBAI IN THE ABOVE MENTIONED CASE I.E., MILAN SHARAD RUPAREL (SUPRA). THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ASSESSEE'S SUBMISSIONS IS REPRODUCED BELOW IN THIS REGARD. 'WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAVING USED THE SALE PROCEEDS F OR SOME OTHER PURPOSE, HAS BORROWED MONEY FROM BANK-FOR PURCHASE OF RESIDENTIAL ITA NO. 4/HYD/2019 :- 7 -: HOUSE WITHIN THE-SPECIFIED PERIOD, EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54F CANNOT BE DENIED (MILAN SHARD RUP ACT V ACIT (2010) 5 ITR (TRIB) 570 (MUM)) AS SUCH, THE ASSESSEE! AR OF THE ASSESSEE BAS MISQU OTED THE CASE LAW WHICH IS IN FAVOUR OF THE DEPARTMENT AND, THERE BY, TRIED TO MISLEAD THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY WHICH IS UNCALLED F OR IN A QUASI- JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS. 7.8 ALSO, THE ASSESSEE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECIS ION OF HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS KASI VISWAN ATHAM [2008] 305 ITR 371(MAD.). I HAVE PERUSED THE CASE LAW AND FOUND THAT THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT IS NOT AP PLICABLE TO THE CASE ON HAND BOTH ON ACCOUNT OF DISTINGUISHABLE FACTS AN D QUESTION OF LAW INVOLVED. TO BE PRECISE, HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT HAS DEALT WITH THE ISSUE OF EXEMPTION U/S.54EA OF THE ACT WHEREIN IT IS HELD THAT SECTION 54EA DOES NOT PREVENT ASSESSEE FROM MAKING INVESTMENT OUT OF AVAILABLE COMPENSATION AMOUNT EVEN BEFORE ENHANC ED COMPENSATION IS RECEIVED. AS SUCH, THE ASSESSEE HAS ONCE AGAIN TRIED TO MISREPRESENT THE CASE BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHO RITY BY QUOTING IRRELEVANT CASE LAWS. 7.9 FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE PLACE RELIANCE ON P.THIRU MOORTHY VS ITO [2011] 7 ITR (TRIB) 10 (CHENNAI) WHICH IS ALSO FOUN D TO BE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE CASE ON HAND ON ACCOUNT OF DISTIN GUISHABLE FACTS AND LEGAL ISSUES INVOLVED. TO BE PRECISE, IN THE SA ID CASE THE HON'BLE ITAT, CHENNAI HAS DEALT WITH THE ISSUE OF ALLOWABIL ITY OF EXEMPTION U/S.54F OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF AMOUNT DEPOSITED I N CAPITAL GAINS DEPOSIT SCHEME ACCOUNT WHEREIN IT IS HELD THAT- WHE RE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD PROPERTY IN IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR AND SALE CONSIDERATION WAS DEPOSITED ILL HIS BANK UNDER CAPITAL GAINS DEPO SIT SCHEME, EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54F COULD NOT BE DISALLOWED . THUS, ALL THE DECISIONS RELIED UP ON BY THE ASSESSEE ARE IRRELEVA NT AND, THEREFORE, CANNOT BE APPLIED TO THE CASE ON HAND. 7.10 IN VIEW OF THE AFOREMENTIONED CASE LAWS, THE P ROVISIONS OF SECTION 54F OF THE ACT SHOULD BE COMPLIED WITH SCRU PULOUSLY BY THE ASSESSEES IN ORDER TO CLAIM EXEMPTION OF CAPITAL GA INS. ACCORDINGLY, IN THE INSTANT CASE, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM EXEMPTION AS SHE HAS FAILE D TO ESTABLISH NEXUS BETWEEN SALE CONSIDERATION ON TRANSFER OF ORIGINAL ASSET AND INVESTMENT MADE IN THE NEW ASSET. FURTHER, IT IS I MPOSSIBLE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH SUCH NEXUS INASMU CH AS THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY MONETARY CONSIDERATIO N ON ACCOUNT OF TRANSFER OF ORIGINAL ASSET, BUT RECEIVED COMMERCIAL SPACE ADMEASURING 19,878 SQ.FT. IN THE PROJECT WESTERN P EAR. 7.11 ALTERNATIVELY, THOUGH THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED INV ESTMENT IN THE NEW ASSET TO THE EXTENT OF RS.63,90,560/-, OUT OF W HICH, ONLY A SUM ITA NO. 4/HYD/2019 :- 8 -: OF RS.6,43,300/- WAS INVESTED FROM HER OWN SOURCE O F INCOME/FUNDS. THEREFORE, IF AT ALL, THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE TO C LAIM EXEMPTION U/S.54F OF THE ACT, THE SAME SHOULD BE RESTRICTED TO RS.6,4 3,300/-. ALSO, IT MAY BE NOTED THAT AS DECIDED VIDE PARA NO.6.9 ABOVE , THE ASSESSEES CLAIM U/S.54F OF THE ACT MADE BEFORE THE AO IS ONLY RS.63,90,560/- INSTEAD OF RS.1,00,00,000/- CLAIMED IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. HOWEVER, IN VIEW OF THE FINDINGS GIVEN IN PARA NOS. 7.4 & 7.10 ABOVE, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT AT ALL ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S.54F OF THE ACT. THUS, THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. 3. WE HAVE GIVEN OUR THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO RIVAL PLEADINGS AGAINST AND IN SUPPORT OF THE IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE. LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE VEHEM ENTLY CONTENDED DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING THAT BOTH THE LO WER AUTHORITIES HAVE RIGHTLY HELD THE ASSESSEE AS NOT ENTITL ED FOR THE IMPUGNED DEDUCTION SINCE NEITHER ANY CAPITAL GAIN S HAD ARISEN FROM TRANSFER OF HER CAPITAL ASSET NOR HAD SHE RE- INVESTED THE SAME IN A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE SO AS TO BE E LIGIBLE U/S.54F OF THE ACT. HE DREW STRONG SUPPORT FROM THE CIT (A)S DETAILED DISCUSSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO FAILED TO PROVE SUCH A RE-INVESTMENT IN A NEW RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY BY FILING COGENT DETAILED EVIDENCE. THE ASSESSEE, ON THE OTHER HAND, SUBMITTED THAT SHE DULY QUALIFIES FOR THE IMPUGNED DEDUCTION CLAIM ON BO TH COUNTS. 4. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND NO MERI T IN REVENUES STAND IN PRINCIPLE. THIS IS FOR THE REASON THAT IT HAS ADOPTED SELF-CONTRADICTORY STAND. MEANING THEREBY THAT O N THE ONE HAND IT HAS ALLEGED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD R ECEIVED DEVELOPED COMMERCIAL AREA FROM THE DEVELOPER IN LIEU OF THE CAPITAL ASSET HANDED OVER TO THE LATTER THEREBY NOT RESULTI NG IN ANY CAPITAL GAINS OR CONSIDERATION MONEY, IT HAS, HOWE VER, ITA NO. 4/HYD/2019 :- 9 -: TREATED AN EQUAL SUM OF RS.1,94,35,276/- AS ASSESSABL E UNDER THE HEAD LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. WE THUS SEE NO REAS ON TO ACCEPT THE REVENUES STAND ON THESE MUTUALLY CONTRADICTORY LINES. 5. NEXT COMES THE EQUALLY SIGNIFICANT ASPECT OF THE RE - INVESTMENT OF ASSESSEES CAPITAL GAINS BY UTILISING HE R JOINT FAMILYS FUNDS. LEARNED COUNSEL AT THIS STAGE INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE ASSESSEES DETAILED PAPER BOOK FILED ON 09-02- 2021 PLACING ON RECORD ALL THE RELEVANT DETAILS OF HER HOUSE CONSTRUCTED IN PLOT NOS.30 AND 31, MAGADHA VILLAGE, K OKAPET, RAJENDRA NAGAR MANDAL, R.R.DISTRICT PURCHASED ON 21-0 9- 2005 FOLLOWED BY SANCTION OF CONSTRUCTION DT.16-06-20 07 AND COMPLETED ON 18-05-2012. WE HOLD IN THIS FACTUAL BAC KDROP THAT LARGER INTEREST OF JUSTICE WOULD BE MET IN CASE THE ASSESSING OFFICER EXAMINES THE ENTIRE ISSUE OF RE-IN VESTMENT OF ASSESSEES CAPITAL GAINS IN THE ABOVE STATED PROPERTY A FRESH. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. NEEDFUL MAY BE DONE WITHIN THR EE EFFECTIVE OPPORTUNITIES OF HEARING AFTER THE ASSESSEE OR HER AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE PUTS IN APPEARANCE BEFORE TH E ASSESSING OFFICER ON OR BEFORE 31 ST JULY, 2021 AT HER OWN RISK AND RESPONSIBILITY. 6. THIS ASSESSEES APPEAL IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR S TATISTICAL PURPOSES IN ABOVE TERMS. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 8 TH MARCH, 2021 SD/- SD/- ( A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) ( S.S. GODAR A ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 08-03-2021 TNMM ITA NO. 4/HYD/2019 :- 10 -: COPY TO : 1.SMT. RAJANI REDDY INTURI, C/O.VENUGOPAL & CHENOY, CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS, TILAK ROAD, HYDERABAD. 2.THE ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-14(1) , HYDERABAD. 3.CIT(APPEALS)-6, HYDERABAD. 4.PR.CIT-6, HYDERABAD. 5.D.R. ITAT, HYDERABAD. 6.GUARD FILE.