Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1), Hyderabad V. Stouvant Pittie, Hyderabad

ITA 691/Hyd/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0491 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-01-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB-A
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 06-05-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: G.RAMA MOHAN
• Keywords: Capital asset
• Section: 54F; 13

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “A” : HYDERABAD (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE) BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 691/HYD/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1), HYDERABAD Vs Sri Stouvant Pittie, HYDERABAD [PAN: ACJPP5719J] (Appellant) (Respondent) For Revenue : Shri T.Sunil Goutam, DR For Assessee : Shri G.Rama Mohan, AR Date of Hearing : 15-12-2021 Date of Pronouncement : 06-01-2022 O R D E R PER S.S.GODARA, J.M. : This Revenue’s appeal for AY.2013-14 arises from the CIT(A)-3, Hyderabad’s order dated 20-02-2019 passed in case No.0079 / CIT(A)-3 / 2016-17, involving proceedings u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, ‘the Act’]. Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. The Revenue raises the following twin substantive grounds in the instant appeal: “1.The Ld.CIT(A) erred both in law and on facts of the case. ITA No. 691/Hyd/2019 :- 2 -: 2.The Ld.CIT(A) erred in allowing deduction u/s 54F of Rs.26,57,53,178/-. 3.The Ld.CIT(A) erred in considering the deduction u/s 54F for the flats situated in all nine independent blocks, whereas deduction is allowed only for one block vide Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of KC Kaushik Vs. PB Rane, Fifth ITO (1990) 185 ITR 499(Bom). 4.The facts of the cited cases do not apply to the instant case of the assessee. 5.The Ld.CIT(A) erred in treating non-refundable deposit of Rs.3 Crores as taxable under the head capital Gain. 6.Any other ground(s) that may be urged at the time of hearing”. 3. We next note that the CIT(A)’s detailed discussion deciding both the foregoing twin issues in assessee’s favour reads as under: ITA No. 691/Hyd/2019 :- 3 -: ITA No. 691/Hyd/2019 :- 4 -: ITA No. 691/Hyd/2019 :- 5 -: ITA No. 691/Hyd/2019 :- 6 -: ITA No. 691/Hyd/2019 :- 7 -: ITA No. 691/Hyd/2019 :- 8 -: ITA No. 691/Hyd/2019 :- 9 -: ITA No. 691/Hyd/2019 :- 10 -: ITA No. 691/Hyd/2019 :- 11 -: ITA No. 691/Hyd/2019 :- 12 -: 4. Learned departmental representative vehemently contended during the course of hearing that the issue as to whether an assessee could be held entitled for re-investment of the capital gains arising from transfer of a capital asset or assets; as the case may be, in different residential projects as a deduction u/s.54F of the Act is no more res integra in light of the tribunal’s Special Bench decision in Sushila M.Jhaveri case (supra). And that we ought to adopt stricter construction principle only whilst deciding a deduction claim in light of Commissioner of Customs Vs. Dilip Kumar (2018) 9 SCC 1 (FB)(SC). 5. We find no merit in Revenue’s instant former argument since the hon'ble jurisdictional high court (supra) has already decided the very issue in assessee’s favour and against the department thereby overruling the Special Bench’s decision. No contrary opinion has come either from hon'ble apex court or a larger bench; as the case may be. We therefore affirm the CIT(A)’s detailed discussion holding the assessee as eligible for 54F deduction in issue. ITA No. 691/Hyd/2019 :- 13 -: 6. We now proceed to deal with the latter issue of taxability of assessee’s interest through deposit of Rs.3 crores. It has come on record that the Ld.CIT(A) has followed the tribunal’s order (supra) that such non-refundable advances have to be assessed as capital gains since derived from transfer of the corresponding capital asset only. We thus uphold the CIT(A)’s foregoing findings qua the instant latter issue as well. No other ground has been pressed before us. 7. This Revenue’s appeal is dismissed in above terms. Order pronounced in the open court on 6 th January, 2022 Sd/- Sd/- (LAXMI PRASAD SAHU) (S.S.GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Hyderabad, Dated: 06-01-2022 TNMM ITA No. 691/Hyd/2019 :- 14 -: Copy to : 1.Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1), Hyderabad. 2.Sri Stouvant Pittie, #14-7-370, Begumbazar, Hyderabad. 3.CIT(Appeals)-3, Hyderabad. 4.Pr.CIT-3, Hyderabad. 5.D.R. ITAT, Hyderabad. 6.Guard File.