ACIT, Coimbatore V. P.Vanchimuthu, Coimbatore

ITA 44/CHNY/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 68772 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-09-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 30-09-2013
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 07-01-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: T N BETGERI IRS
• Assessee Lawyers: K RAGHU
• Section: 143(3); 54

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, CHENNAI BEFORE DR. O.K.NARAYANAN, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.44(MDS)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE II, COIMBATORE. VS SHRI P.VANCHIMUTHU, 29, TEACHERS LINE, PEELAMEDU, COIMBATORE-641 009. PAN ABQPV6126M. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI T.N.BETGERI, IRS , JCIT RESPONDENT BY : SHRI K.RAGHU, C.A. DATE OF HEARING : 30 TH SEPTEMBER, 2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30 TH SEPTEMBER, 2013 O R D E R PER DR.O.K.NARAYANAN, VICE-PRESIDENT THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE REVENUE. THE RELEVAN T ASSESSMENT YEAR IS 2009-10. THE APPEAL IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS)-I AT COIMBATORE, DATED 19-10-2012. THE APPEAL ARISES OU T OF THE - - ITA 44 OF 2013 2 ASSESSMENT COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE IN COME-TAX ACT, 1961. 2. THE RELEVANT GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE READ AS UNDER:- 1. THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 54B. 2. THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT MAJOR PORTION OF THE INVESTMENT, I.E. ` 85,00,000/- WAS MADE MUCH EARLIER TO THE SALE, AND THERE IS NO EXPLANATION FROM THE ASSESSEE FOR THE SOURCE OF THE SAME. 3. THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS UTILIZED OTHER SOURCES TO MAKE THIS INVESTMENT AND NOT THE SALE PROCEEDS WHICH MAKE HIM INELIGIBLE FOR THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 50B. 3. THE HONBLE KERALA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF IT O VS. K.C.GOPALAN, 107 TAXMAN 591, HAS HELD THAT LAW DOES NOT INSIST THAT SALE CONSIDERATION OBTAINED BY ASSESSEE ITSELF SHOULD - - ITA 44 OF 2013 3 BE UTILIZED FOR PURCHASE OR CONSTRUCTION OF NEW HOU SE PROPERTY. THE WORDINGS USED IN SECTION 54 ARE SIMILAR TO THE TEXT OF LAW STATED IN SECTION 54B. THEREFORE, THE ABOVE JUDGME NT OF THE HONBLE KERALA HIGH COURT IS APPLICABLE TO THIS CAS E AND AS SUCH WE HOLD THAT THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E- TAX(APPEALS) IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 4. IN RESULT, THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME O F HEARING ON MONDAY, THE 30 TH OF SEPTEMBER, 2013 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (VIKAS AWASTHY) (DR. O.K.NARAYANAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT CHENNAI, DATED, THE 30 TH SEPTEMBER, 2013. V.A.P. COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR 6. GF.