ACIT, CHENNAI V. Ramani Joseph, CHENNAI

ITA 628/CHNY/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7269 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-04-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 13-03-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: T BANUSEKAR
• Keywords: Capital asset; Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 54F; 54

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI . , . , BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO. 628/CHNY/2017 / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(2), CHENNAI 600 034. VS. SMT. RAMANI JOSEPH, NO. 14, TARAPORE AVENUE, HARRINGTON ROAD, CHETPET, CHENNAI 600 031. [PAN:AAJPJ1141J] ( /APPELLANT ) ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI SRIDHAR DORA, JCIT / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI T. BANUSEKAR, C.A. / DATE OF HEARING : 28.02.2019 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25.04.2019 / O R D E R PER DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) 1, CHENNAI, DATED 19.12.2016 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS CONTRARY TO LAW, FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 2.1 THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM DEDUCTION U/S.54, 54F & 54EC IN RESPECT OF THE CAPITAL GAINS ARISING OUT OF A SINGLE TRANSACTION OF SALE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY. 2.2 THE LEARNED CIT(A) WHILE UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO IN RESPECT OF DEDUCTION U/S.54 OF THE ACT, ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE I.T.A. NO. 628/M/17 2 BALANCE CAPITAL GAINS AFTER ALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION U/S.54F WAS ELIGIBLE TO BE CONSIDERED FOR DEDUCTION U/S.54F OF THE ACT. 2.3 THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING THE BALANCE CAPITAL GAINS TO BE CONSIDERED UNDER 54F OF THE ACT DESPITE THERE BEING NO PROVISIONS IN THE ACT ALLOWING BENEFITS AVAILABLE UNDER SEC.54 AND 54F TO A SINGLE TRANSACTION ON WHICH CAPITAL GAINS AROSE. 2.4 THE LEARNED CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE CONDITIONS TO BE SATISFIED BY AN ASSESSEE ARE DIFFERENT UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.54 AND 54F AND THEREFORE, THE DIRECTION OF THE CIT(A) TO ALLOW BENEFIT OF SEC.54 AND SEC.54F IS NOT IN ORDER. 2.5 THE LEARNED CIT(A) FURTHER ERRED IN DIRECTING THE AO TO COMPUTE ELIGIBLE DEDUCTION U/S.54F IN RESPECT OF THE BALANCE CAPITAL GAINS TOWARDS THE INVESTMENT MADE AS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S.54F WITHOUT CONSIDERING WHETHER THE CONDITIONS IN THE PROVISO TO SEC.54F WERE SATISFIED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. FOR THESE AND OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE ADDUCED AT THE TIME OF HEARING, IT IS PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) MAY BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE A.O. RESTORED. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN CONSULTANCY SERVICES AND FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 ON 5.8.2013 ADMITTING INCOME OF .3,63,84,950/-. THE PREDOMINANT PORTION OF THE TAXABLE INCOME CONSTITUTE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF PROPERTY AT MUTTUKADU, ECR OF .9,79,72,382/- TO M/S. VGN DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54 AND 54EC OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 [ACT IN SHORT] TO THE TUNE OF .5,76,25,701/- AND . 50,00,000/- AND THE REMAINING AMOUNT OF . 3,53,46,681/- HAS BEEN DECLARED AS CAPITAL GAIN. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED. AFTER VERIFICATION OF DETAILS FURNISHED AGAINST STATUTORY NOTICES, THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT WAS I.T.A. NO. 628/M/17 3 COMPLETED ON 11.02.2016 DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME AT . 8,58,36,728/- AFTER MAKING DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 54 OF THE ACT TO THE TUNE OF .4,93,94,256/-. 3. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). AFTER CONSIDERING THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND FACTS OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW DEDUCTION OF .50,00,000/- UNDER SECTION 54EC OF THE ACT AND ALSO TO COMPUTE ELIGIBLE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE ACT ON THE BALANCE INVESTMENT IN THE FLAT/APARTMENT AND ALLOW THE SAME WHILE COMPUTING LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS ARISING ON THE SALE OF IMPUGNED LAND/CAPITAL ASSET. 4. AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE LD. DR HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54, 54F & 54EC OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF THE CAPITAL GAINS ARISING OUT OF A SINGLE TRANSACTION OF SALE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ONCE THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE ACT IS CONSIDERED, THERE IS NO PROVISION IN THE ACT TO ALLOW BENEFITS AVAILABLE UNDER SECTION 54 AND 54EC OF THE ACT TO A SINGLE TRANSACTION ON WHICH CAPITAL GAINS AROSE. SINCE THE CONDITIONS TO BE SATISFIED BY AN ASSESSEE ARE DIFFERENT UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 54, 54F AND 54EC OF THE ACT, THE DIRECTIONS OF THE LD. CIT(A) TO ALLOW BENEFIT OF SECTION 54, 54F AND 54EC OF THE ACT IS I.T.A. NO. 628/M/17 4 NOT IN ORDER AND PLEADED TO SET ASIDE THE APPELLATE ORDER AND RESTORE THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND PRAYED FOR ITS CONFIRMATION. 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES, PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW INCLUDING PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAD OWNED LANDS AT MUTTUKADU, ECR TO THE EXTENT OF 1.07 ACRES AND 0.35 ACRES (BOTH TOGETHER 1.37 ACRE) VIDE SURVEY NO.46/2A1 AND 46/2A2 RESPECTIVELY. ADJACENT TO THE LAND, SHRI BINOY JOSEPH (BROTHER-IN-LAW OF THE ASSESSEE) HELD LAND TO THE EXTENT OF 1.02 ACRES. OUT OF THE SAID LANDS 0.14 ACRES BELONGING TO ASSESSEE AND 0.08 ACRES BELONGING TO BINOY JOSPEH WERE ACQUIRED BY THE GOVERNMENT FOR ROAD EXTENSION. DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14, REMAINING LAND TO THE EXTENT OF 1.23 ACRES HELD BY THE ASSESSEE AND 0.94 ACRES HELD BY SHRI BINOY JOSEPH WERE SOLD TO M/S. VGN DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. AS A RESULT OF SALE, THE ASSESSEE HAD DECLARED .9,79,72,382/- AS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54 TO THE TUNE OF .5,76,25,701/- WAS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE, BASED ON THE INVESTMENT IN PROPERTY ACQUIRED FROM SHRI D.H. SARATH SITUATED AT CHENNAI BEARING FLAT NO.2, BLOCK A, RAIN TREE APARTMENT, VENUS COLONY, ALWARPET, CHENNAI. THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THE COPY OF THE PURCHASE DEED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN ADDITION TO THE ABOVE, I.T.A. NO. 628/M/17 5 THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE INVESTMENT OF . 50,00,000/- IN REC BOND AND CLAIMED DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54EC OF THE ACT. 6.1 BY THE REGISTERED DOCUMENTS NO.P154/89, DATED 6.10.1989 & 1840 DATED 25.7.1990, SRO, TIRUPPORUR, THE ASSESSEE BECAME THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT MUTTUKADU, ECR. THE TOTAL EXTENT OF LAND COMPRISED IN THE PROPERTY WAS 1.23 ACRES (53,579 SQ.FT) AND THEREAFTER THE ASSESSEE CONSTRUCTED A BUILDING TO THE EXTENT OF 1.512 SQ. FT. ALONG WITH THE FIRST FLOOR TO THE EXTENT OF 1,015 SQ. FT. THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE CONSISTS OF SWIMMING POOL TO THE EXTENT OF 740 SQ. FT. DRIVE WAY FROM THE MAIN THOROUGHFARE OF 3,610 SQ. FT. AFTER EXAMINING THE SALE DOCUMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT AS PER ANNEXURE A, ONLY 850 SQ. FT. OF GROUND FLOOR AND 687 SQ. FT. OF FIRST FLOOR BELONGS TO SMT. RAMANL JOSEPH.THE OTHER BUILDING TO THE EXTENT OF 468 SQ. FT. BELONGS TO SHRI BINOY JOSPEH, BROTHER IN LAW OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS CONSIDERED THE WHOLE PROPERTY AS RESIDENTIAL UNIT ALONG WITH LAND APPURTENANT THERETO AND CLAIMED EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54 AND 54EC OF THE ACT. 6.2 THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE OPINION THAT AS PER THE PROVISION CONTAINED IN SECTION 54 OF THE ACT, IT MUST BE HELD THAT THE EXPRESSION BEING BUILDING OR LAND APPURTENANT THERETO SHOULD BE NECESSARILY REFERRED ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF THE LAND WHICH IS REASONABLY REQUIRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROPER ENJOYMENT OF THE HOUSE. IF THE HOUSE STANDS ON A VAST EXTENT OF LAND, IT WOULD I.T.A. NO. 628/M/17 6 BE IMPROPER TO CONSIDER THE ENTIRE EXTENT OF LAND AS APPURTENANT TO THE BUILDING FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 54 OF THE ACT. THE SECTION 54 IS NOT PERMITTED AGAINST THE CAPITAL GAIN ARISING ON THE SALE OF ENTIRE LAND AS SUCH, BUT ONLY AGAINST THE SALE OF THE BUILDING AND LAND APPURTENANT THERETO. THUS, WHERE A BUILDING TOGETHER WITH LAND IS SOLD, IT IS NECESSARY TO DETERMINE THE EXTENT OF LAND WHICH IS REQUIRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROPER ENJOYMENT OF THE BUILDING AS SUCH AND THE APPURTENANT LAND CAN BE RESTRICTED ONLY TO THAT REASONABLE EXTENT AND CANNOT BE EXTENDED TO THE ENTIRE EXTENT OF LAND. 6.3 THE NEW PROPERTY ACQUIRED FROM SHRI. D.H. SHARATH AT RAIN TREE APARTMENT, ALWARPET, CHENNAI VIDE DOCUMENT NO.1066/2012 HAS VALUE OF .5,25,00,000/-. THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54 OF THE ACT IS ALLOWABLE TO THE EXTENT OF INVESTMENT MADE IN THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER RESTRICTED THE QUANTUM ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION TO THE VALUE OF BUILDING AND THE LAND APPURTENANT TO SUCH BUILDING. SINCE THE AREA OF THE INVESTED PROPERTY WAS ONLY 2,665 SQ. FT. ALONG WITH 1,449 SQ. FT. OF UNDIVIDED SHARE OF LAND AND THE AREA OF THE SOLD PROPERTY WAS 5,862 SQ. FT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPUTED THE REASONABLE AREA OF LAND APPURTENANT TO THE BUILDING REASONABLY AT 8228 SQ. FT. (2 TIMES OF THE AREA OF THE INVESTED PROPERTY) AND THUS, THE VALUE RELATING TO 45,351 SQ. FT. OF LAND WAS EXCLUDED FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTATION OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54 OF THE ACT. I.T.A. NO. 628/M/17 7 6.4 DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED THAT THE CAPITAL GAINS EARNED ON SALE OF LAND (AS PER THE ORDER) IS ELIGIBLE UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE ACT AND REQUESTED TO CONSIDER THE SAME. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MADE ANY SUCH CLAIM IN THE RETURN OF INCOME, THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BY HOLDING THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM DEDUCTION U/S.54 AND 54F BY MAKING INVESTMENT FROM SALE CONSIDERATION OF TWO DIFFERENT PROPERTIES INTO ONE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE AND THEREFORE, ASSESSED THE CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF LAND OF . 8,47,40,937/- IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 6.5 ON APPEAL, AGAINST THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54 AND 54EC OF THE ACT OF THE GAINS ARISING FROM THE SALE OF THE HOUSE PROPERTY ALONG WITH LAND APPURTENANT THERETO AS WELL AS ALTERNATE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54 AS ALSO 54F OF THE ACT, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE SOLD THE IMPUGNED LAND ALONG WITH A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE PROPERTY FOR A CONSIDERATION OF .10,67,72,265/-. OUT OF THE SALE CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSEE INVESTED .5,76,25,701/- ON PURCHASE OF A RESIDENTIAL APARTMENT AT CHENNAI THEREBY AVAILING THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54 AND THE BALANCE OF .50,00,000/- IN REC CAPITAL BONDS THEREBY AVAILING DEDUCTION OFFERED UNDER SECTION 54EC OF THE ACT. THE REASONS FOR TAKING SUCH A VIEW HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED IN THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE SOLD A SINGLE PROPERTY BEING A HOUSE PROPERTY ALONG WITH LAND APPURTENANT THERETO I.T.A. NO. 628/M/17 8 ON A SINGLE SALE DEED AND RECEIVED A SINGLE PAYMENT FOR THE IMPUGNED SALE. SO IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER IT IS TO BE CONSIDERED AS SALE PROCEEDS OF THE HOUSE PROPERTY AND LAND APPURTENANT THERETO OR HOUSE PROPERTY ALONG WITH REASONABLE LAND APPURTENANT THERETO AND VACANT LAND SEPARATELY, THE ASSESSEE WILL BE ELIGIBLE TO AVAIL THE DEDUCTIONS AVAILABLE UNDER SECTION 54, 54EC AND 54F OF THE ACT. WHAT IS MATERIAL HERE IS THE FACT THAT THE PROCEEDS/CAPITAL GAINS WERE FROM THE SALE OF PROPERTY USED FOR RESIDENCE IN TERMS OF SECTION 54 OF THE ACT. THUS, THE LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT SECTION 54 PROVIDES THAT THERE WERE CAPITAL GAINS ARISES FROM LONG-TERM CAPITAL ASSET BEING BUILDING OR LAND APPURTENANT THERETO AND BEING A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE AND THE SAME ARE INVESTED WITHIN THE STIPULATED TIME AS SPECIFIED IN A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE THE SAME WILL NOT BE SUBJECT TO CAPITAL GAINS U/S 45 OF THE ACT. SIMILARLY, THE EXCESS OR UN-APPROPRIATED GAIN IF IT IS INVESTED IN SPECIFIED MODES THEN THE SAME WOULD NOT ATTRACT CAPITAL GAINS U/S 45 OF THE ACT. SECTION 54EC PROVIDES FOR CAPITAL GAINS NOT TO BE CHARGED ON INVESTMENTS ARISING FROM TRANSFER OF LONG-TERM CAPITAL ASSETS IN CERTAIN BONDS. SECTION 54F PROVIDES FOR CAPITAL GAINS NOT TO BE CHARGED IN CASE OF INVESTMENT IN RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. THE DEDUCTIONS AVAILABLE U/S 54 ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE ON THE SALE PROCEEDS OF THE SAME PROPERTY I.E., A HOUSE PROPERTY ALONG WITH LAND APPURTENANT THERETO BEING A LONG-TERM CAPITAL ASSET. I.T.A. NO. 628/M/17 9 6.6 TO SUM UP, AGAINST THE SALE OF 1.23 ACRES ADMEASURING 53,579 SQ. FT. LAND WITH BUILDING, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 54 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT BUILDING WAS ONLY 850 (GF) PLUS 657 SFT OF FIRST FLOOR(FF). THE DEDUCTION U/S 45 OF THE ACT IS FOR TRANSFER OF RESIDENTIAL BUILDING ALONG WITH LAND APPURTENANT THERETO. HENCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER FIXED LAND APPURTENANT TO THE BUILDING AT 8,228 SFT AND DISALLOWED THE CLAIM U/S 54 OF THE ACT ON THE SALE OF BALANCE LAND OF 45,351 SQ. FT. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE MADE INVESTMENT OF .5,76,25,701/- IN A NEW APARTMENT AS WELL AS .50,00,000/- U/S 54EC WHICH ARE NOT DISPUTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE DEDUCTION WAS ALLOWED ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1,32,25,455/- UNDER SECTION 54 I.E., TO THE EXTENT OF LONG-TERM CAPITAL GAINS (LTCG) ON TRANSFER OF RESIDENTIAL BUILDING WITH APPURTENANT LAND. THE BALANCE INVESTMENT OF .50,00,000 U/S 54EC AND .3,94,00,246/- UNDER SECTION 54F ARE ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION FROM LTCG ON THE SALE OF BALANCE LAND. 6.7 THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54F ON THE GROUND THAT NO SUCH CLAIM WAS MADE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE LD. CIT(A) WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THIS PREMISE IS NOT WHOLLY CORRECT AS THE ASSESSEE OF ITS OWN ACCORD HAD MADE A CLAIM U/S 54E IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. IT DID NOT FORESEE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WOULD NOT BE CONVINCED WITH THE CLAIM. THE CLAIM U/S 54F THEREFORE ORIGINATED ONLY DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS DURING WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER TREATED ONLY PART OF THE LAND AS APPURTENANT TO THE BUILDING. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE I.T.A. NO. 628/M/17 10 THE DISALLOWANCE FOLLOWING THE KERALA HIGH COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF ASHA GEORGE [2013] 30 TAXMANN.COM 334. EVEN IF SUCH DECISION IS ACCEPTED, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE DENIED OF THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED UNDER SECTION 54F TO WHICH IT IS ENTITLED, AS LONG AS THERE IS NO DISPUTE ON THE INVESTMENT IN NEW ASSET. 6.8 FURTHER, THE LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE PROPOSITION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT BOTH THE DEDUCTIONS, U/S 54 AND 54F CANNOT BE GIVEN ON THE SAME PROPERTY IS BEREFT OF MERIT AS THERE IS NO SUCH BAR IMPOSED STATUTORILY IN THE ACT. BOTH THE SECTIONS ONLY SPEAK ABOUT INVESTMENT IN NEW PROPERTY, A FACT ON WHICH THERE IS NO DISPUTE. THERE IS NO DOUBLE CLAIM ON THE SAME INVESTMENT AS THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THE BALANCE/SPILL OVER INVESTMENT IN THE NEW FLAT AS DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE ACT. UNDER THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW DEDUCTION OF .50,00,000 U/S 54EC AND ALSO TO COMPUTE ELIGIBLE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE ACT ON THE BALANCE INVESTMENT IN THE FLAT/APARTMENT AND ALLOW THE SAME WHILE COMPUTING LONG-TERM CAPITAL GAINS ARISING ON THE SALE OF IMPUGNED LAND CAPITAL ASSET. SO FAR AS THE FRESH CLAIM UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE ACT IS CONCERNED, THE OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MADE SUCH CLAIM OF DEDUCTION IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME. SINCE VARIOUS COURTS HAVE HELD THAT THE APPELLATE AUTHORITIES HAVE CONFERRED UPON THE I.T.A. NO. 628/M/17 11 POWER TO ADJUDICATE AND ALLOW THE LEGITIMATE CLAIM, WHICH WAS NOT CLAIMED IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME, THE CLAIM UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE ACT ADMITTED BY THE LD. CIT(A) CANNOT BE HELD AS ILLEGAL. UNDER THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THE 25 TH APRIL, 2019 AT CHENNAI. SD/ - SD/ - (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (DUVVURU RL REDDY) JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED, THE 25.04.2019 VM/- /COPY TO: 1. / APPELLANT, 2. / RESPONDENT, 3. ( ) /CIT(A), 4. /CIT, 5. /DR & 6. /GF.