The ITO, Vijayawada V. Smt. settupalli Sujatha, Vijayawada

ITA 446/VIZ/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6498 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-12-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 15-11-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B C S NAIK
• Keywords: Capital asset
• Section: 54F

Judgement Text

ITA NO.446/VIZAG/2016 SMT. SETTUPALLI SUJATHA, VIJAYAWADA 1 , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM . , . . # % , ' BEFORE SHRI D. MANMOHAN, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./I.T.A.NO.446/VIZAG/2016 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14) ITO, WARD - 2(3), VIJAYAWADA SMT. SETTUPALLI SUJATHA, VIJAYAWADA [PAN NO. B NTPS2363D ] ( ) / APPELLANT) ( *+) / RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI B.C.S. NAIK, DR / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI C. SUBRAHMANYAM, AR / DATE OF HEARING : 07.12.2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 07.12.2017 / O R D E R PER D. MANMOHAN, VICE PRESIDENT: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINS T ORDER OF THE CIT(A), VIJAYAWADA DATED 31.8.2016 FOR THE ASSESSME NT YEAR 2013-14. THE ONLY GROUND URGED IN THE APPEAL READS AS UNDER: 1. THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT NOT TO HAVE DELETED THE ADDITI ON MADE TOWARDS DISALLOWANCE OF CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 54F SINCE THE ASSESSEE CANNOT CLAIM DEDUCTION FOR ONE NEW RESIDEN TIAL HOUSE IN ITA NO.446/VIZAG/2016 SMT. SETTUPALLI SUJATHA, VIJAYAWADA 2 TWO SEPARATE ASSESSMENT YEARS ON SALE OF TWO VACANT SITES IN DIFFERENT ASSESSMENT YEARS 2. FACTS NECESSARY FOR THE DISPOSAL OF APPEAL ARE S TATED IN BRIEF. THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL BY STATUS AND IT DERIVED INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY, CAPITAL GAINS AND OTHER SOURCES DURING TH E PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION . ASSESSEE SOLD A HOUSE SITE IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 AND CLAIM ED EXEMPTION U/S 54F OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER CALLED AS 'THE ACT'), SINCE THE CONSIDERATION WAS INVESTED IN PURCHASE OF RESID ENTIAL SITE AND CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSE COMMENCED DURING THAT YEAR. DUE TO INADEQUACY OF FUNDS, TO COMPLETE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE, ASSESSEE S OLD ANOTHER SITE ON 18.6.2012 AND THE ENTIRE CONSIDERATION WAS INVESTED IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOUSE UNDER PROGRESS. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTA NCES, EVEN FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED EXEM PTION U/S 54F OF THE ACT. 3. ACCORDING TO THE A.O., THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO CLAIM EXEMPTION ONLY IN RESPECT OF THE SALE PROCEEDS ARISING OUT OF ONE PROPERTY AND EXEMPTION CANNOT BE SPREAD OVER TWO YEARS. SINCE A SSESSEE HAS ALREADY CLAIMED EXEMPTION U/S 54F OF THE ACT FOR THE ASSESS MENT YEAR 2012-13, THE CLAIM FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS DENI ED BY THE A.O. ITA NO.446/VIZAG/2016 SMT. SETTUPALLI SUJATHA, VIJAYAWADA 3 4. ON AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE LD. CIT( A) SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND ALLOWED THE BENE FIT OF EXEMPTION U/S 54F OF THE ACT ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAID PROVISIO N IS A BENEFICIAL PROVISION DESIGNED WITH A VIEW TO PROMOTE RE-INVEST MENT OF SALE PROCEEDS OF LONG TERM CAPITAL ASSET, FOR THE PURPOS E OF PURCHASE/CONSTRUCTION OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. GOI NG BY THE FINANCE MINISTERS SPEECH AND ALSO THE UNDERLYING PURPOSE I N INTRODUCTION OF SECTION 54F OF THE ACT, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS OF THE V IEW THAT SO LONG AS AN ASSESSEE UTILISES THE SALE PROCEEDS BY CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOUSE, BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION U/S 54F OF THE ACT CAN BE AVAILED. IN THIS REGARD, LD. CIT(A) FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF ITAT BOMBAY BENCH I N THE CASE OF DCIT VS. RANJIT VITTAL DAS 137 ITAT 267, WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT THERE IS NO RESTRICTION THAT CAPITAL GAIN ARISING FROM SALE OF MORE THAN ONE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE CANNOT BE INVESTED IN ONE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. 5. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), REVENU E IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. AT THE OUTSET, THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE LD. CIT(A) HAS BEEN CONSISTENTLY FOLLOWED BY VARIOUS BENCHES OF IT AT, WHICH ARE PLACED IN THE PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE LD. D.R. COULD NOT PLACE ANY DECISION OF THE HIGH COURT OR OF ANY OTHER FORU M, WHEREIN A CONTRARY VIEW IS TAKEN. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, AND CONS ISTENT WITH THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY BENCHES AS WELL AS DELH I BENCHES OF ITAT, ITA NO.446/VIZAG/2016 SMT. SETTUPALLI SUJATHA, VIJAYAWADA 4 WE HOLD THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN GRANTI NG THE BENEFIT AVAILABLE U/S 54F OF THE ACT TO THE ASSESSEE, IN TH E CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. FOR THE REASONS STATED HEREIN ABOVE, THE APP EAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED ACCORDINGLY IN THE OPEN COURT ON 07 .12.2017. SD/- SD/- ( . . # % ) ( . ) (D.S. SUNDER SINGH) (D. MANMOHAN) ' /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /VICE PRESIDENT $ /VISAKHAPATNAM: ( /DATED : 07.12.2017 VG/SPS *$ +$ /COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. / THE APPELLANT THE ITO, WARD-2(3), VIJAYAWADA 2. / THE RESPONDENT SMT. SETTUPALLI SUJATHA, 59A-16 -4/2, PLOT NO.87, 3 RD ROAD, RTC COLONY, PATAMATA, VIJAYAWADA-520 008. 3. , / THE CIT, VIJAYAWADA 4. , ( ) / THE CIT (A),VIJAYAWADA 5. $ / , / , $ / DR, ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM 6 . / GUARD FILE / BY ORDER // TRUE COPY // SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM