Mrs. Mrunalini Pawar, Pune V. Addl. CIT, Range-7, Pune

ITA 657/PUN/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 79882 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-05-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 11-03-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P L PATHADE
• Keywords: Capital asset; Business income; Cost of acquisition
• Section: 54F; 54

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A , PUNE BEFORE: SHRI R.S. PADVEKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 657 / P N/ 20 1 3 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 200 9 - 10 MRS. MRUNALINI PAWAR, S. NO. 73, OF F. BANER ROAD, J P SHROFF MARG, BANER, PUNE VS. A DDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX, RANGE - 7, PUNE (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. AIIPP3501D APPELLANT BY: SHRI C.H. NANIWADEKAR RESPONDENT BY: SHRI P.L. PATHADE DATE OF HEARING : 09 - 0 4 - 2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 26 - 05 - 2014 ORDER PER R.S . PADVEKAR , JM : - IN THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) - III, PUNE DATED 30 - 01 - 2013 FOR THE A.Y. 200 9 - 10 . THE SOLITARY ISSUE WHICH ARISES FOR OUR CONSIDERATI ON IS WHETHER THE LD. CIT(A) JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT THE COST OF LAND TO THE EXTENT OF RS.73,79,200/ - HAS TO BE EXCLUDED WHILE COMPUTING THE DEDUCTION U/S. 54F OF THE ACT. 2. THE FACTS WHICH ARE REVEALED FORM THE RECORD AS UNDER. THE ASSESSEE IS AN IND IVIDUAL AND FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE A.Y. 2009 - 10 DECLARING THE TAXABLE INCOME AT RS.10,72,86,350/ - . THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED THE CAPITAL GAIN ON THE SALE OF THE SHARES OF AJAY METACHEM PVT. LTD. TO THE EXTENT OF RS.14,72,60,815/ - . THE ASSESSE E HAD CLAIMED THE DEDUCTION U/S. 54F OF THE ACT TOWARDS THE CAPITAL GAIN ON THE SALE OF THE SHARES TO THE EXTENT OF RS.3,91,49,629/ - . E VEN THOUGH THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ACCEPT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF THE HEAD UNDER WHICH THE GAIN/ PR OFIT IS TO BE TAXED BUT HE EXAMINED 2 ITA NO. 657/PN/2013, MRS. MRUNALINI PAWAR, PUNE THE CLAIMED OF THE ASSESSEE U/S. 54 F . THE LD. CIT(A) ALLOWED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE GAIN/PROFIT ON THE SALE OF 13,351 SHARES OF AJAY METACHEM PVT. LTD. I S TO BE ASSESSED AS A LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN UN DER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAIN. THE LD. CIT(A) DID NOT GIVE THE RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF THE CLAIM THAT THE COST OF THE LAND ON WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS CONSTRUCTED HER RESIDENTIAL HOUSE IS ALSO TO BE INCLUDED FOR THE PURPOSE OF CLAIMING DEDUCTION/ EXEMPTION U/S. 54F OF THE ACT. 3. WE MAKE IT CLEAR THAT IT WAS NOT BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE THAT THE REVENUE HAS FILED ANY APPEAL CHALLENGING THE FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THE GAIN ON THE SALE OF THE SHARES OF AJAY METACHEM PVT. LTD. IS TO BE ASSESSED AS A LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AS AGAINST THE BUSINESS INCOME AS HELD BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER . WE ARE CONCERNED WITH THE LIMITED CONTROVERSY IN RESPECT OF THE COST OF LAND WHICH WAS ALSO CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S. 54F OF THE ACT . AS PER THE FACTS ON RECORD AND ALSO NOT DISPUTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED THE PLOT OF LAND ON 05 - 12 - 2004 WHICH WAS MUCH MORE THAN ONE YEAR BEFORE THE DATE OF SALE OF SHARES AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, HELD THAT TO THE EXTENT OF THE CLAI M OF THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF THE COST OF THE LAND , T HE SAID COST CANNOT BE CONSIDERED FOR THE PURPOSE OF CLAIMING THE DEDUCTION U/S. 54F OF THE ACT. 4. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE SAID FINDING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) BUT WITHOU T SUCCESS. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE PLACED HIS RELIANCE ON THE CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 667 DATED 18 - 10 - 1993 AND PLEADED THAT THERE IS NO TIME LIMIT FRAMED FOR THE PURPOSE OF ACQUIRING THE PLOT OF LAND. THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT IMPRESSED WITH THE CONTEN TION OF THE ASSESSEE AND HE CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE EXTENT THAT THE COST OF PLOT OF LAND ON WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS CONSTRUCTED THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE CANNOT BE CONSIDERED FOR THE 3 ITA NO. 657/PN/2013, MRS. MRUNALINI PAWAR, PUNE PURPOSE OF SEC. 54F OF THE ACT. THE RELEVANT DISC USSION AND FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(A) ARE AS UNDER: 3.1. AS ALREADY MENTIONED HEREINABOVE, THE APPELLANT WAS FOUND TO HAVE CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S. 54F FROM THE EARNED OUT OF SALE OF SHARES OF AMPL. EVEN THOUGH THE CLAIM OF EARNING CAPITAL GAINS ON SALE OF AM PL WAS REJECTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ADMISSIBILITY OF DEDUCTION U/S.54F TO THE APPELLANT WAS EXAMINED BY HIM. IT WAS NOTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE PLOT ON WHICH THE CONSTRUCTION OF RESIDENTIAL BUNGALOW WAS MADE IN RESPECT OF WHICH THE SA ID CLAIMED, WAS PURCHASED BY THE APPELLANT MORE THAN ONE YEAR BEFORE THE SALE OF SHARES. HE WAS ACCORDINGLY OF THE VIEW THAT SUCH DEDUCTION U/S. 54F WAS NOT AVAILABLE TO THE APPELLANT FROM THE GAINS ON SALE OF THE IMPUGNED SHARES, EVEN IT WAS HELD THAT THE RESULTANT GAINS ON SALE OF THE SHARES WERE CAPITAL GAINS. 3.2. DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, STRONGLY DISPUTING THE FINDING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED THAT AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 54F, THE CONST RUCTION OF THE NEW RESIDENTIAL HOUSE IS REQUIRED TO BE COMPLETED WITHIN THREE YEARS FROM THE DATE OF TRANSFER OF THE SHARES VIZ. BY 23.5.2011. THE APPELLANT HAS COMPLETED THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE DURING THE YEAR ENDED 31 ST MARCH 2010 VIZ. WITHIN THE STIPULATED PERIOD OF THREE YEARS EVEN THOUGH THE PLOT WAS PURCHASED BY THE APPELLANT ON 5.12.2004. IN THIS CONTEXT, THE A.R. HAS DRAWN REFERENCE TO PARA 2 OF CIRCULAR NO. 667 DATED 18 TH OCTOBER, 1993 WHICH READS AS UNDER: 2. THE BOARD HAS EXAMI NED THE ISSUE WHETHER, IN CASES WHERE THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE IS CONSTRUCTED WITHIN THE SPECIFIED PERIOD, THE COST OF SUCH RESIDENTIAL HOUSE CAN BE TAKEN TO INCLUDE THE COST OF THE PLOT ALSO. THE BOARD ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE COST OF THE LAND IS AN INTEGRA L PART OF THE COST OF THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE, WHETHER PURCHASED OR BUILT. ACCORDINGLY, IF THE AMOUNT OF CAPITAL GAIN FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTION 54, AND THE NET CONSIDERATION FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTION 54F, IS APPROPRIATED TOWARDS PURCHASE OF PLOT AND ALS O TOWARDS CONSTRUCTION OF A RESIDENTIAL THEREON, THE AGGREGATE COST SHOULD BE CONSIDERED FOR DETERMINING THE QUANTUM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54/54F, PROVIDED THAT 4 ITA NO. 657/PN/2013, MRS. MRUNALINI PAWAR, PUNE THE ACQUISITION OF PLOT AND ALSO THE CONSTRUCTION THEREON ARE COMPLETED WITHIN THE PERIOD SPECIFIED IN THESE SECTIONS. RELYING ON THE ABOVE CIRCULAR, THE A.R. SOUGHT TO ARGUE THAT THERE IS NO RESTRICTION ON TIMING OF PURCHASE OF THE PLOT ON WHICH RESIDENTIAL HOUSE IS CONSTRUCTED. HE EMPHASIZED THAT WHAT IS REQUIRED IS THAT PURCHASE OF PLOT AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE SHOULD BE COMPLETED WITHIN THE STIPULATED PERIOD. POINTING OUT THAT IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE IS CONSTRUCTED UNDISPUTEDLY WITHIN THE STIPULATED PERIOD, A.R. ARGUED THAT THE COS T OF THE PLOT IS REQUIRED TO BE CONSIDERED WHILE COMPUTING THE DEDUCTION U/S 54F. 3.3. THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT ARE CAREFULLY EXAMINED WITH REFERENCE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE LEGAL POSITION AS APPLICABLE TO THE YE AR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE ELIGIBILITY CONDITIONS FOR AVAILING DEDUCTION UNDER SEC. 54F ARE AS FOLLOWS: (I) THE ASSESSEE MUST BE AN INDIVIDUAL OR A HINDU UNDIVIDED FAMILY. (II) THE CAPITAL GAINS MUST ARISE FROM THE TRANSFER OF A LONG - TERM CAPITAL ASSET, NOT BEING A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. (III) THE NET CONSIDERATION MUST BE INVESTED IN THE PURCHASE OR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. (IV) THE NEW RESIDENTIAL HOUSE SHOULD HAVE BEEN PURCHASED EITHER WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR BEFORE THE DATE OF TRANSFER OR WITHIN TWO YEARS AFTER SUCH DATE. (V) THE NEW RESIDENTIAL HOUSE MUST BE CONSTRUCTED WITHIN THREE YEARS FROM THE DATE OF SUCH TRANSFER. (VI) ON THE DATE OF SUCH TRANSFER THE INDIVIDUAL OR HINDU UNDIVIDED FAMILY SHOULD NOT OWN MORE THAN ONE RESIDENTIAL H OUSE OTHER THAN THE ORIGINAL ASSET. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE CONTROVERSY IS ONLY ABOUT FULFILLMENT OF CONDITION (IV) I.E. WHETHER THE PLOT, ON WHICH THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE WAS CONSTRUCTED, WAS PURCHASED WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR BEFORE THE DATE OF TRANSFE R OR WITHIN A PERIOD OF TWO YEARS AFTER SUCH DATED. 5 ITA NO. 657/PN/2013, MRS. MRUNALINI PAWAR, PUNE ADMITTEDLY, THE PLOT ON WHICH THE CONSTRUCTION OF RESIDENTIAL BUNGALOW WAS MADE IN RESPECT OF WHICH DEDUCTION WAS CLAIMED, WAS PURCHASED BY THE APPELLANT BEYOND ONE YEAR BEFORE THE DATE OF TRANSFER OF SH ARES. THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT IS THAT SINCE THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE WAS CONSTRUCTED UNDISPUTEDLY WITHIN/ THE STIPULATED PERIOD; THE COST OF THE PLOT IS REQUIRED TO BE CONSIDERED WHILE COMPUTING THE DEDUCTION U/S. 54F NOTWITHSTAND ING THE POSITION THAT THE PLOT WAS ACQUIRED ON 05.12.2004. THIS CONTENTION HAS NO MERIT. AS PER THE BOARD'S CIRCULAR REFERRED ABOVE, IF THE AMOUNT OF THE NET CONSIDERATION FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTION 54F, IS APPROPRIATED TOWARDS PURCHASE OF PLOT AND ALSO T OWARDS CONSTRUCTION OF A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE, THE AGGREGATE COST SHOULD BE CONSIDERED FOR DETERMINING THE QUANTUM DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54F, PROVIDED THAT THE ACQUISITION OF PLOT AND ALSO THE CONSTRUCTION THEREON ARE COMPLETED WITHIN THE PERIOD SPECIFIED IN THE SECTION. THE BOARD CIRCULAR MAKES THE LEGAL POSITION VERY CLEAR THAT FOR AVAILING THE DEDUCTION TOWARDS COST OF PLOT ALONG WITH COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE, THE PLOT ALSO HAS TO BE ACQUIRED WITHIN THE SPECIFIED PERIOD I.E. WITHIN ONE YEAR BEFORE THE DATE OF TRANSFER OR WITHIN TWO YEARS AFTER SUCH DATE. THE ARGUMENT OF THE APPELLANT THAT THERE IS NO RESTRICTION ON THE TIMING OF PURCHASE OF THE PLOT ON WHICH RESIDENTIAL HOUSE IS CONSTRUCTED IS NOT LEGALLY TENABLE IN VIEW OF THE EXPRESS PROVISIONS OF SEC. 54F AND AS CLARIFIED IN THE ABOVE REFERRED BOARD'S CIRCULAR. IF THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT IS ACCEPTED EVEN IF THE PLOT IS ACQUIRED OR PURCHASED AT ANY POINT TIME BEFORE THE DATE OF TRANSFER, FOR INSTANCE EVEN 25 YEARS BEFORE THE DA TE OF TRANSFER, THE COST OF THE PLOT, ON WHICH THE CONSTRUCTION WAS MADE WITHIN THE SPECIFIED PERIOD, HAS TO BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION UNDER SEC. 54F ALONG WITH COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOUSE, WHICH IS NOT THE INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE IN PROVIDING THE DEDUCTION UNDER THIS SECTION. FOR AVAILING THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION TOWARDS COST OF PLOT, THE ACQUISITION OF PLOT AS WELL AS THE CONSTRUCTION THEREON MUST BE WITHIN THE PERIOD SPECIFIED IN THE SECTION. IN THE INSTANT CASE, AS THE PLOT WAS ACQUIRED ON 05 .12.2004 I.E. BEYOND ONE YEAR BEFORE THE DATE OF TRANSFER OF IMPUGNED SHARES, THE APPELLANT IS NOT ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION UNDER SEC. 54F IN RESPECT OF COST OF ACQUISITION OF PLOT. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS JUSTIFIED IN DENYING THE DED UCTION CLAIMED UNDER SEC. 54F IN RESPECT OF COST OF PLOT AND THE ACTION OF THE AO IN THIS REGARD IS UPHELD. GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 1 FAILS. 6 ITA NO. 657/PN/2013, MRS. MRUNALINI PAWAR, PUNE NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECO RD. THE FACTS ARE NOT IN DISPUTE IN THIS CASE IN RESPECT OF THE DATE OF ACQUISITION OF THE PLOT OF LAND. THE LIMITED ISSUE WHICH WE HAVE TO EXAMINE I S EVEN IF THE ASSESSEE HAS ACQUIRED THE PLOT OF LAND BEYOND THE TIME LIMIT PRESCRIBED U/S. 54F OF THE ACT , WHETHER THE ASSESSEE CAN CLAIM THE BENEFIT U/S. 54F. THE HEAVY RELIANCE PLACED BY THE LD. COUNSEL IS ON THE CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 667 DATED 18 - 10 - 1993 WHICH IS REPRODUCED HERE - IN - UNDER: CIRCULAR: NO. 667, DATED 18 - 10 - 1993. 431. WHETHER, IN CASES WHERE THE R ESIDENTIAL HOUSE IS CONSTRUCTED WITHIN THE SPECIFIED PERIOD, THE COST OF SUCH RESIDENTIAL HOUSE CAN BE TAKEN TO INCLUDE THE COST OF THE PLOT ALSO 1. SECTIONS 54 AND 54F PROVIDE FOR A DEDUCTION IN CASES WHERE AN ASSESSEE HAS, WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR BEF ORE OR TWO YEARS AFTER THE DATE ON WHICH THE TRANSFER OF A CAPITAL ASSET TAKES PLACE, PURCHASED, OR HAS WITHIN A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS AFTER THAT DATE CONSTRUCTED, A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. THE QUANTUM OF DEDUCTION IS ITSELF DEPENDENT UPON THE COST OF SUCH NEW ASSET. IT HAS BEEN REPRESENTED TO THE BOARD THAT THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE SHOULD BE TAKEN TO INCLUDE THE COST OF THE PLOT AS, IN A SITUATION OF PURCHASE OF ANY HOUSE PROPERTY, THE CONSIDERATION PAID GENERALLY INCLUDES THE CONSIDERA TION FOR THE PLOT ALSO. 2. THE BOARD HAS EXAMINED THE ISSUE WHETHER, IN CASES WHERE THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE IS CONSTRUCTED WITHIN THE SPECIFIED PERIOD, THE COST OF SUCH RESIDENTIAL HOUSE CAN BE TAKEN TO INCLUDE THE COST OF THE PLOT ALSO. THE BOARD ARE OF TH E VIEW THAT THE COST OF THE LAND IS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE COST OF THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE, WHETHER PURCHASED OR BUILT. ACCORDINGLY, IF THE AMOUNT OF CAPITAL GAIN FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTION 54, AND THE NET CONSIDERATION FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTION 54F, IS APPROPRIATED TOWARDS PURCHASE OF A PLOT AND ALSO TOWARDS CONSTRUCTION OF A RESIDENTIAL 'HOUSE THEREON, THE AGGREGATE COST SHOULD BE CONSIDERED FOR DETERMINING THE QUANTUM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54/54F, PROVIDED THAT THE ACQUISITION OF PLOT AND ALSO 7 ITA NO. 657/PN/2013, MRS. MRUNALINI PAWAR, PUNE THE CONSTRUCTION THEREON, ARE COMPLETED WITHIN THE PERIOD SPECIFIED IN THESE SECTIONS. 6. THERE IS NO DISPUTE ABOUT THE PROPOSITION THAT AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 54F , T HE ASSESSEE CAN CLAIM THE DEDUCTION U/S. 54F(1) IF HE IS AN INDIVIDUAL OR HUF IN RESPECT OF CAPITAL GAIN ARISING FROM THE TRANSFER OF ANY LONG TERM CAPITAL ASSET , T HE ASSESSEE HAS, WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR BEFORE OR TWO YEARS AFTER THE DATE ON WHICH THE TRANSFER OF A CAPITAL ASSET TAKES PLACE, PURCHASED, OR HAS WITHIN A PERIOD OF TH REE YEARS AFTER THAT DATE CONSTRUCTED, A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE THEN AS PROVIDED IN SEC. 54F(1) , THE ASSESSEE CAN CLAIM THE DEDUCTION. 7. EARLIER THERE WAS A DISPUTE IN CASE IF THE ASSESSEE HAS CONSTRUCTED A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE THEN WHETHER THE COST OF LAND CA N BE TREATED AS A PART OF COST OF NEW ASSET FOR THE PURPOSE OF SEC. 54F(1) OF THE ACT. THE CBDT MADE THE CLARIFICATION VIDE CIRCULAR NO. 663 DATED 18 - 10 - 1993. AS PER THE CBDT CIRCULAR THE COST OF THE LAND IS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE COST OF THE RESIDENTIA L HOUSE, WHETHER PURCHASED OR BUILT BUT THE ACQUISITION OF THE PLOT AND ALSO THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF HAVE BEEN COMPLETED WITHIN THE PERIOD SPECIFIED IN SEC. 54F(1). E VEN IF THE CBDT TAKEN A LIBERAL VIEW TO THE EXTENT OF THE COST OF THE LAND BUT AT THE SA ME TIME THE CBDT HAS EXPLAINED IN CLEAR TERMS THAT THE TIME LIMIT PROVIDED U/S. 54F(1) FOR THE PURCHASE OR CONSTRUCTION OF THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE IS TO BE MAINTAINED. 8. THE LD. COUNSEL RELIED ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. J.R. SUBRAMANYA BHAT 16 5 ITR 571 (KAR). IN THE SAID CASE THE ASSESSEE HAS STARTED THE CONSTRUCTION PRIOR TO THE SALE OF OLD BUILDING ON 09 - 02 - 1977 . THE ASSESSEE COMMENCED THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE NEW BUILDING IN 1976 WHICH WAS COMPLETED IN MARCH, 19 7 7. IN THE SAID CASE THE HON 'BLE HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT AS THE TIME LIMIT WAS MAINTAINED FOR COMPLETION OF THE NEW BUILDING THE COMMENCEMENT WAS IRRELEVANT. 8 ITA NO. 657/PN/2013, MRS. MRUNALINI PAWAR, PUNE 9. THE ASSESSEE ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF MUNEER KHAN VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER 41 SOT 504 (HYD). IN THE SA ID CASE THE ISSUE WAS WHETHER FOR THE PURPOSE OF INVESTMENT THE ASSESSEE MUST USE THE FUNDS GENERATED FROM THE SALE OF THE PROPERTY. IN OUR OPINION IN THE SAID DECISION ALSO THERE WAS A COMPLIANCE OF THE TIME LIMIT. WE, THEREFORE, HOLD THAT AS THE ASSESS EE HAS NOT ACQUIRED THE PLOT OF LAND WITHIN THE TIME LIMIT SPECIFIED U/S. 54F ON WHICH THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE HAS BEEN CONSTRUCTED , T HE ASSESSING OFFICER RIGHTLY REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF CLAIM THAT COST OF LAND IS ALSO TO BE INCLUDED FOR CONSIDERING DEDUCTION U/S. 54F . WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 10. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 26 - 05 - 20 1 4 SD/ - SD/ - ( R.K. PANDA ) ( R.S. PADVEKAR ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER RK /PS PUNE , DATED : 26 TH MAY, 20 1 4 COPY TO 1 ASSESSEE 2 DEPARTMENT 3 THE CIT(A) - III, PUNE 4 THE CIT - III, PUNE 5 THE DR, ITAT, A BENCH, PUNE . 6 GUARD FILE. //T RUE COPY// BY ORDER PRIVATE SECRETARY INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE