Vibha Niranjan Shah, Ahmedabad V. ITO, Int.Tax-1, Ahmedabad

ITA 600/AHD/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6235 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-09-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 08-04-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: LALIT P JAIN
• Keywords: Revision of order; Benefit of exemption
• Section: 54F; 64; 147; 263

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD SMC BENCH (BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER) ( THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT ) ITA. NO: 600/AHD/2019 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12) VIBHA NIRANJAN SHAH C/O. SHAH ENTERPRISE, DENA BANK BUILDING, PRITAMNAGAR, AHMEDABAD- 380006 V/S INCOME TAX OFFICER INTL. TAXN-1, AHMEDABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN: BLRPS6217E APPELLANT BY : MS. ARTI N. SHAH, A.R. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI LALIT P. JAIN, SR.D.R. ( )/ ORDER DATE OF HEARING : 25 -08-2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 04 -09-2020 PER MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-13, AHMEDABAD DATED 14.03.2019 PERTAINING TO A.Y. 2011-12 AND FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN TAKEN: ITA NO. 600/AHD/2019 . A.Y. 2011-12 2 1. THE LD. CIT(A)-13, AHMEDABAD HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF CLAIM U/S. 54F OF RS. 12,12,616/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT APPELLANT IS A NON RESIDENT INDIAN. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IN QUESTION, NO RETURN WAS FILED. THEREAFTER LD. A.O. ISSUED A NOTICE U/S 147 AND IN PURSUANCE TO THE SAID NOTICE, RETURN WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSE SHOWING TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 26,828/- AFTER CLAIMING EXEMPTION U/S 54F AMOUNTING TO RS. 12,12,616/-. THEREAFTER, THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 263 WERE INITIATED BY THE LD. CIT AND AFTER CONCLUDING THE PROCEEDINGS, MATTER WAS REMANDED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. A.O. FOR VERIFICATION OF CLAIM MADE U/S 54F OF THE I.T. ACT. 3. BEFORE THE LD. A.O., ASSESSE FILED ALL THE RELEVANT DETAILS AND CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSE IS THAT APPELLANT WAS ONE OF THE JOINT OWNERS OF LAND SITUATED AT MANIPUR OF SANAND TALUKA AND WAS HAVING 1/6 TH SHARE ADMEASURING 29239 SQ. MTRS. THE SAID LAND WAS SOLD FOR RS. 1,12,00,000/- AFTER PAYING STAMP DUTY OF RS. 6,77,800/-. AS THE SHARE OF SALES CONSIDERATION RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT WAS INVESTED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF NEW RESIDENTIAL BUILDING, EXEMPTION TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 12,12,616/- WAS CLAIMED IN RESPONSE TO RETURN FILED U/S 147 OF THE ACT AND SAME WAS NOT ALLOWED BY THE LD. A.O. ON THE GROUND THAT CONSTRUCTION WAS NOT COMPLETED WITHIN THE PERIOD OF THREE YEARS FROM THE DATE OF TRANSFER OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT. 4. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, ASSESSE SUBMITTED THAT SHE HAS MADE PAYMENT ON 08.03.2011 AND SALE DEED WAS EXECUTED ON 30.03.2009 AND REQUESTED LD. A.O. THAT BENEFIT OF SECTION 54F SHOULD BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSE. ITA NO. 600/AHD/2019 . A.Y. 2011-12 3 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND GONE THROUGH THE RELEVANT RECORD. NOW QUESTION BEFORE US IS THAT WHETHER BENEFIT OF SECTION 54F TO BE GIVEN TO THE APPELLANT OR NOT BECAUSE LOWER AUTHORITIES CONTENTION IS THAT POSSESSION AND SALE DEED WAS NOT EXECUTED WITHIN THE PERIOD OF THREE YEARS FROM THE DATE OF SOLD PROPERTY AGAINST WHICH APPELLANT IS CLAIMING THE BENEFIT OF SECTION 54F IN THIS CASE PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSE ON 29/09/1996 AT RS. 2,82,000/- AND ON 28/02/2011 SAME PROPERTY WAS SOLD BY THE ASSESSE AND GOT HIS 1/6 TH SHARE AT RS. 18,70,000/- ON 08/03/2011, APPELLANT INVESTED THE AMOUNT FOR PURCHASE OF BUNGALOW NO. 64 AT SHIVALIK BUT SALE DEED WAS EXECUTED ON 30/03/2019. THUS APPELLANT MADE PAYMENT FOR PURCHASE OF HOUSE WITHIN THREE YEARS FROM THE DATE OF SALE MANIPUR OF SANAND TALUKA PROPERTY. 6. LD. A.R. CITED AN ORDER OF CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF CO-OWNER IN THE SAME PROPERTY NAMELY SHRI RUPANDE NARESH SHAH VS. ITO IN ITA NO. 1968/AHD/2018, MATTER WAS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF ONE OF THE CO-OWNER WITH FOLLOWING OBSERVATION: 16. THE 1 ST ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IS CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE A.O. BY DENYING THE BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE ACT FOR RS. 13,46,203.00 ONLY. 17. AT THE OUTSET WE NOTE THAT THE IDENTICAL ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED BY US IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE IN THE CASE OF NARESH HATHSING SHAH IN ITA NO. 1967/AHD/2018 VIDE PARAGRAPH NO. 8 OF THIS ORDER. FOR THE DETAILED DISCUSSION, PLEASE REFER THE RELEVANT PARAGRAPH. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME, WE ALLOW THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSE. ITA NO. 600/AHD/2019 . A.Y. 2011-12 4 7. SINCE MATTER HAS ALREADY BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF ONE OF THE CO-OWNER IN THE SAID PROPERTY. THUS IN PARITY WITH THE SAID ORDER, WE ALLOW THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSE. 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 04- 09- 2020 SD/- SD/- (PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA) (MAHAVIR PRASAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TRUE COPY JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD: DATED 04/09/2020 RAJESH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT (APPEALS) 4. THE CIT CONCERNED. 5. THE DR., ITAT, AHMEDABAD. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER DEPUTY/ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT,AHMEDABAD