UMA VIJAY, Jaipur V. ITO, Jaipur

ITA 827/JPR/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5193 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-07-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 01-12-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R A VERMA CIT DR DHK
• Keywords: Capital asset; Cost of acquisition; Corroborative evidences
• Section: 54F; 139(5); 54; 15; 139

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR JH HKKXPUN] YS[KK LNL; ,OA JH YFYR DQEKJ] U;KF;D LN L; DS LE{K BEFORE:SHRI BHAGCHAND, AM & SHRI LALIET KUMAR, J M VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 827/JP/2015 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 SMT. UMA VIJAY 8-C, 35, PRATAP NAGAR TONK ROAD, JAIPUR CUKE VS. THE ITO WARD- 6 (3) JAIPUR LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO .: AANPV 9576 B VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI ANIL KUMAR SHARMA, CA JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI R.A. VERMA, ADDL.CIT -DR LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 22/06/2016 ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 04/07/2016 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER BHAGCHAND, AM THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-II, JAIPUR DATED 19-10-2015 FOR THE ASSESSME NT YEAR 2012-13 RAISING THEREIN FOLLOWING GROUND:- UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, TH E LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF T HE AO IN RESTRICTING THE DEDUCTION U/S 54F OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 41,59,180/- AGAINST THAT OF RS. 1,43, 03,205/- CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS INVESTMENT OF CONST RUCTION OF NEW RESIDENTIAL HOUSE AND THEREBY IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,01,44,025/- TO RETURNED INCOME AS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. ITA NO. 827/JP/2015 SMT. UMA VIJAY, JAIPUR VS. ITO, WARD- 6(3), JAIPUR . 2 2.1 BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE F ILED HER RETURN OF INCOME ON 14-02-2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-1 3 DECLARING HER TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 2,53,050/-. THE CASE OF THE ASS ESSEE WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) (A) OF THE ACT, 1961. THE CASE OF THE ASSESS EE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUE D ON 08-08-2013. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE ATTENDED THE PROCEEDINGS AND SUBMITTED THE DETAILS BEFORE THE AO. THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S SHOWN HER INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AND OTHER SOURCES. DURING THE Y EAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN LONG TERM CAP ITAL GAIN OF RS. 1,43,03,205/- AND CLAIMED EXEMPTION U/S 54F OF REGI STERED SALE DEED 1,43,03,205/-. THE AO ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE DETAILS OF HER INCOME, CAPITAL GAIN AND STATEMENT OF CAPITAL GAIN ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED THE DETAILS. THE AO ON PERUSAL OF THE DET AILS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD A PROP ERTY SITUATED AT 1, ANAND BHAWAN GRUH NIRMAN SAHKARI SAMITI, TAGORE NAG AR YOGANA, JAIPUR ON 23-01-2012 FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS. 1.5 0 CRORES. THE AO OBSERVED THAT FURTHER DEDUCTION U/S 54F HAD BEEN CL AIMED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR PURCHASE OF PROPERTY AT ANSAL HEIGHTS, 86, VILL AGE NAWADA, FATEHPUR, GURGAON AND FOR PURCHASE OF THIS PROPERTY THE ASSES SEE HAS MADE AGREEMENT ON 15-10-2012 WITH ANSAL HOUSING & CONSTR UCTION, NEW DELHI. THE ASSESSEE HAS THUS WORKED OUT CAPITAL GAI N AS UNDER:- ITA NO. 827/JP/2015 SMT. UMA VIJAY, JAIPUR VS. ITO, WARD- 6(3), JAIPUR . 3 (A) FULL VALUE OF SALE CONSIDERATION RS.1,50,00,000 (I) COST OF ACQUISITION RS. 1,50,000/- INDEXED COST RS. 4,19,039/- (II) COST OF IMPROVEMENT RS. 2,15,000/- INDEXED COST OF IMPROVEMENT RS. 2,77,756/- (III) TOTAL RS. 6,96,795/- (B) BALANCE RS. 1,43,03,205/- DEDUCTION U/S 54F (INVESTMENT 1,50,00,000) RS. 1 ,43,03,205 THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD A RESIDE NTIAL PROPERTY ON 23-01-2012 AND MADE AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE OF FLATS ON 15-10-2012. THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN WAS 31-07-2012. THE A O FURTHER PERUSED THE DETAILS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DEPOSITED THE SALE CONSIDERATION IN CAPITAL GAIN AC COUNT BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF INCOME TAX RETURN. THE AO VIDE LE TTER NO. 1714 DATED 26-12-2014 ASKED THE ASSESSEE AS UNDER:- DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, YOU HAVE SOL D A PROPERTY SITUATED AT 1, ANAND BHAWAN, GRUH NIRMAN S AHKARI SAMITI, TAGORE NAGAR YOJNA, JAIPUR ON CONSIDERATION OF RS. 1.50 CRORES ON 23-01-2012. YOU HAVE ALSO CLAIMED DEDUCTI ON U/S 54F FOR PURCHASING OF TWO FLATS SITUATED AT UNIT NO. D-1002 & 1002, ANSAL HEIGHTS, 86, VILLAGE NAWADA, FATEHPUR, GURGAON. TO PURCHASE THESE FLATS, YOU HAVE MADE AGREEMENT ON 15-10-2012 WITH ANSAL HOUSING & CONSTRUCTION LTD. NEW DELHI. SECTION 54F (4) READS AS UNDER:- THE AMOUNT OF THE NET CONSIDERATION WHICH IS NOT APPROPRIATED BY THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS THE PURCHASE OF THE NEW ASSET MADE WITHIN ONE YEAR BEFORE THE DATE ON WHICH THE TRANSFER OF THE ORIGINAL ASSE T TOOK PLACE, OR WHICH IS NOT ITA NO. 827/JP/2015 SMT. UMA VIJAY, JAIPUR VS. ITO, WARD- 6(3), JAIPUR . 4 UTILISED BY HIM FOR THE PURCHASE OR CONSTRUCTION OF THE NEW ASSET BEFORE THE DATE OF FURNISHING THE RETURN OF INCOME UNDER SECTION 139 , SHALL BE DEPOSITED BY HIM BEFORE FURNISHING SUCH RETURN [SUCH DEPOSIT BEING MADE IN ANY CASE NOT LATER THAN THE DUE DATE APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF T HE ASSESSEE FOR FURNISHING THE RETURN OF INCOME UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 139 ] IN AN ACCOUNT IN ANY SUCH BANK OR INSTITUTION AS MAY BE SPECIFIED IN, AN D UTILISED IN ACCORDANCE WITH, ANY SCHEME 95 WHICH THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT MAY, BY NOTIFICATION I N THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE, FRAME IN THIS BEHALF AND SUCH RET URN SHALL BE ACCOMPANIED BY PROOF OF SUCH DEPOSIT ; AND, FOR THE PURPOSES OF SU B-SECTION (1), THE AMOUNT, IF ANY, ALREADY UTILISED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PURCH ASE OR CONSTRUCTION OF THE NEW ASSET TOGETHER WITH THE AMOUNT SO DEPOSITED SHA LL BE DEEMED TO BE THE COST OF THE NEW ASSET. 2.2 THE AO FURTHER ASKED THE ASSESSEE THAT U/S 54F , SHE IS REQUIRED TO DEPOSIT THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 1.50 CRORES I N CAPITAL GAIN ACCOUNT SCHEME BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FURNISHING OF RETURN U/S 139 (1) I.E. 31-07- 2012. THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INDICAT ED THAT SHE HAS OPENED THE CAPITAL GAIN ACCOUNT IN SBI, BAJAJ NAGAR , JAIPUR BEARING NO. 32145102874 BUT THE AO NOTICED THAT NO SUCH AMOUNT RECEIVED ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF PROPERTY WAS DEPOSITED BEFORE 3 1-07-2012. THE AO SHOW CAUSED THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHY HER CLAIM U/S 54 F MAY NOT BE DISALLOWED AS SHE HAS MADE AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE O F PROPERTY ON 15-10-2012 AND NOT DEPOSITED ENTIRE SALE CONSIDERAT ION OF RS. 1.50 CRORES IN CAPITAL GAIN ACCOUNT SCHEME BEFORE DUE DATE OF F ILING OF THE INCOME TAX RETURN. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE FILED THE REPLY AT PAGES 3 TO 5 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OF THE AO. THE AO CONSIDERED THE REPLY FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BUT NOT FOUND TENABLE. THE AO OBSERVED THA T AS PER SECTION 54F(4), THE AMOUNT OF NET CONSIDERATION WHICH IS NO T APPROPRIATED BY THE ITA NO. 827/JP/2015 SMT. UMA VIJAY, JAIPUR VS. ITO, WARD- 6(3), JAIPUR . 5 ASSESSEE TOWARDS THE PURCHASE OF THE NEW ASSET BEFO RE THE DUE DATE OF FURNISHING THE RETURN OF INCOME U/S 139 SHALL BE DE POSITED IN CAPITAL GAIN ACCOUNT SCHEME AND SUCH DEPOSIT BEING MADE IN ANY C ASE NOT LATER THAN THE DUE DATE APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR FURNISHING THE RETURN OF INCOME UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 139. THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 1 39 WAS 31-07-2012. THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD THE RESI DENTIAL PLOT ON 23-01- 2012 AND GOT REGISTERED IT VIDE SALE DEED DATED 23- 01-2012. AS AND WHEN THE PROPERTY WAS REGISTERED, THE LIABILITY FOR CAPI TAL GAIN WAS RAISED TOWARDS ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE WAS LIABLE TO PAY CAPITAL GAIN THEREOF. IF SHE WANTS TO CLAIM ANY DEDUCTION, SHE WAS TO FOLLOW THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN IN RESPECTIVE SECTIONS. THE AO OBSERVED THAT T HE LIBERTY PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE PURCHASER FOR PAYMENT OF SAL E CONSIDERATION AFTER THE DATE OF REGISTRY, WOULD NOT CHANGE THE LIABILIT Y OF PAYING CAPITAL GAIN OR CONDITION LAID DOWN IN THE ACT FOR THE ASSESSEE IS CLAIMING DEDUCTION. THE AO FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INVES TED ONLY OF RS. 43,61,799/- FOR PURCHASE OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY FO R CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S 54F BEFORE DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN UNDER S UB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 139 I.E. 31-07-2012. THE AO OBSERVED THAT CONSIDERI NG THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND SUBMISSION FILED BY THE LD. AR OF THE ASSE SSEE, DEDUCTION U/S 54F IS ALLOWABLE FOR INVESTMENT OF RS. 43,61,799/- ONLY . THE AO FURTHER ASKED ITA NO. 827/JP/2015 SMT. UMA VIJAY, JAIPUR VS. ITO, WARD- 6(3), JAIPUR . 6 THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE DETAILS OF SUPPORTING E VIDENCES FOR COST OF IMPROVEMENT TOTALING TO RS. 2.15 LACS IN RESPECT OF PROPERTY SOLD OUT DURING THE YEAR. THE AO OBSERVED FROM THE DETAILS F ILED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT SUPPORTING EVIDENCES FOR EXPENSES CLAIMED OF R S. 19,282 AN COST OF BOUNDARY WALL & OTHER EXPENSES OF RS. 65,000/- WERE NOT FURNISHED. THEREFORE, THE AO DISALLOWED THE EXPENSES CLAIMED O N THIS ACCOUNTS TOTALING TO RS. 84,282/-. 2.3 BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTE R BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE AO BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: 3.3 I HAVE PERUSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE ASS ESSMENT ORDER AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT. THE ASS ESSEE DURING THE RELEVANT YEAR HAS SHOWN LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF R S. 1,43,03,205/- AND CLAIMED EXEMPTION U/S 54F OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 OF RS. 1,42,03,205/-. THE ASSESSEE SOLD A RESIDENTI AL PROPERTY ON 23-01-2012 WHILE AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE OF A NEW FL AT HAS BEEN MADE ON 15-10-2012. THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF INCOM E TAX RETURN FOR THE RELEVANT YEAR IS 31-07-2012. AS PER DETAILS FILED, THE ASSESSEE HAS INVESTED RS. 43,61,799 BY 31-07-2012 I .E. BEFORE DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN 139(1) OF THE I.T. ACT, 19 61. FURTHER, THE RETURN FOR THIS YEAR HAS ACTUALLY BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 14- 02-2013. FURTHER THE ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED RS. 1,0 6,60,000/- IN THE CAPITAL GAIN ACCOUNT AND THIS AMOUNT HAS BEEN D EPOSITED AFTER 31-07-2012 BUT BEFORE 31-03-2014 I.E. THE DATE OF F ILING OF RETURN FOR THE RELEVANT YEAR U/S 139(5) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1 961. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT SINCE THE EN TIRE AMOUNT OF RS. 1,06,60,000/- HAD BEEN DEPOSITED BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN U/S 139(4), THE DEDUCTION U/S 54F OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 SHOULD BE ALLOWED ON THE ENTIRE AMOUNT. THE AO ON THE OTHER HAND HAS RESTRICTED THE ALLOWANCE TO AMOUNTS DEPOSI TED/UTILIZED BEFORE THE DUE DATE FOR FILING OF RETURN U/S 139 (1 ) OF THE I.T. ACT, ITA NO. 827/JP/2015 SMT. UMA VIJAY, JAIPUR VS. ITO, WARD- 6(3), JAIPUR . 7 1961. THE LD. AR HAS RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING CASE L AWS FOR THE PROPOSITION:- CIT VS. JAGRITI AGARWAL,339 ITR 610 (P&H) (HC) ITO VS. A PREM KUMAR (ITA NO. 2050/MDS/2012 (CHENNA I ITAT ) ANIL KUMAR OMKAR SINGH AURORA VS. ITO (ITA NO. 4648/MUM/2013 (MUMBAI ITAT ) THE ISSUE TO BE EXAMINED IS THE TERM DUE DATE APPEA RING IN THE SECTION 54F(4) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 WHICH DEAL S WITH THIS ISSUE. THE SAME IS REPRODUCED BELOW:- THE AMOUNT OF THE NET CONSIDERATION WHICH IS NOT APPROPRIATED BY THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS THE PURCHASE OF THE NEW ASS ET MADE WITHIN ONE YEAR BEFORE THE DATE ON WHICH THE TRANSFER OF THE O RIGINAL ASSET TOOK PLACE, OR WHICH IS NOT UTILISED BY HIM FOR THE PURC HASE OR CONSTRUCTION OF THE NEW ASSET BEFORE THE DATE OF FURNISHING THE RETURN OF INCOME UNDER SECTION 139 , SHALL BE DEPOSITED BY HIM BEFORE FURNISHING SUCH RETURN [SUCH DEPOSIT BEING MADE IN ANY CASE NOT LAT ER THAN THE DUE DATE APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR FURNISHI NG THE RETURN OF INCOME UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 139 ] IN AN ACCOUNT IN ANY SUCH BANK OR INSTITUTION AS MAY BE SPECIFIED IN, AND UTI LISED IN ACCORDANCE WITH, ANY SCHEME 95 WHICH THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT MAY, BY NOTIFICATION IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE, FRAME IN THIS BEHALF AND S UCH RETURN SHALL BE ACCOMPANIED BY PROOF OF SUCH DEPOSIT ; AND, FOR TH E PURPOSES OF SUB- SECTION (1), THE AMOUNT, IF ANY, ALREADY UTILISED B Y THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PURCHASE OR CONSTRUCTION OF THE NEW ASSET TOGETHER WITH THE AMOUNT SO DEPOSITED SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE THE COST OF THE NEW ASSET. .. IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE APEX COURT IN THE C ASE OF P.N. KHANNA VS. CIT (2004) 266 ITR 1 / 135 TAXMA N 327, AND THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL WHICH HAS RELIED ON THIS DECISION, THE DUE DATE AS SPECIFIED IN THE SEC TION 139 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 HAS TO BE AS PER 139(1) AND NOT 139(4) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. THE SECOND PLEA TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE CONSIDERATION WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE LATER AN D AFTER THE ITA NO. 827/JP/2015 SMT. UMA VIJAY, JAIPUR VS. ITO, WARD- 6(3), JAIPUR . 8 DUE DATE FOR FILING THE RETURN AND HENCE COULD NOT BE DEPOSITED. IN THIS RESPECT, THE DEFINITION OF NET CONSIDERATION U/S 54F OF THE I.T. ACT,1961 IS AS F OLLOWS:- NET CONSIDERATION IN RELATION TO TRANSFER OF A CAPITAL ASSET, MEANS THE FULL VALUE OF THE CONSIDERATION RE CEIVED OR ACCRUING AS A RESULT OF THE TRANSFER OF THE CAPITAL ASSET AS REDUCED BY ANY EXPENDITURE INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCL USIVELY IN CONNECTION WITH SUCH TRANSFER. THUS IT INCLUDES FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION RECEIV ED OR ACCRUED AND IN ORDER TO CLAIM DEDUCTION THE AMOUNTS TO BE INVESTED WOULD BE IN RELATION TO THIS NET CONSIDERA TION. IN VIEW OF THE DISCUSSION ABOVE AND THE CASES RELIE D ON INCLUDING THE DECISION OF APEX COURT, IT IS HELD TH AT THE AMOUNTS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 54F OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 ARE THOSE DEPOSITED BEFORE THE FILING OF THE RETURN AS PER SECTION 139(1) AND ONLY THOSE CAN BE ALLOWED. THUS THE DEDUCTION U/S 54F OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 IS ALLOWED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 43,61,799/- ONLY. THE ORDER OF THE AO ON TH IS ISSUE IS UPHELD. 2.4 DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE PRAYED FOR DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS. 1,01,42, 025/- BY ALLO WING DEDUCTION U/S 54F OF THE ACT WITH FOLLOWING SUBMISSIONS. 5. THE DUE DATE FOR FILING OF THE RETURN U/S 139( 1) WAS 31.07.2012: - THE ADVANCE OF RS.500000/-RECEIVED VIDE CH. NO.23 6167 DATED 20.12.2011 (PB NO.23) WAS DEPOSITED IN CAPITAL GAIN ACCOUNT NO.321 45102874 WITH SBI, BAJAJ NAGAR, JAIPUR ON 19.01.2012 . (PB NO.41) - THE BALANCE SALES CONSIDERATION OF RS.14500000/- WAS RECEIVED VIDE POST DATED CHEQUES PERTAINING TO THE PERIOD BEYOND THE DUE D ATE PRESCRIBED U/S 139(1), AS FOLLOWS: (PB NO.23) S.NO. CHEQUE NO. DATE AMOUNT 1. 562405 30.11.2012 5000000/- 2. 562406 30.11.2012 5000000/- 3. 562407 30.11.2012 4500000/- TOTAL 14500000/- ITA NO. 827/JP/2015 SMT. UMA VIJAY, JAIPUR VS. ITO, WARD- 6(3), JAIPUR . 9 - OUT OF THE SAME THE CHEQUE NO.562407 OF RS.450000 /-(PB NO.32) WAS REPLACED BY THREE ANOTHER CHEQUES WHICH WERE REALISED ON DIFFER ENT DATES IN THE S.B ACCOUNT NO.677701024886 OF ICICI BANK, AS FOLLOWS: (PB NO. 36-39) S.NO. CHEQUE NO. DATE OF REALISATION AMOUNT PB NO. 1. 906841 04.12.2012 2000000/- 37 2. 906843 07.12.2012 1000000/- 38 3. 906845 11.12.2012 1500000/- 38 TOTAL 4500000/- - OTHER TWO CHEQUES OF RS.5000000/- EACH WERE RETUR NED UNPAID ON 31.12.2012. (PB NO.28-31) 6. IN LIEU OF THE CHEQUES RETURNED UNPAID OF RS.100 00000/- THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED RTGHS OF RS.5000000/- DIRECTLY IN SBI CAPITAL GAIN ACCOUNT AS FOLLOWS:(PB NO.40- 42) S.NO. CHEQUE NO. DATE OF REALISATION AMOUNT PB NO. 1. RTGS 01.01.2013 2500000/- 41 2. RTGS 01.01.2013 2500000/- 41 TOTAL 5000000/- - AND BALANCE OF RS.5000000/- WAS RECEIVED/REALISED IN SB ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE WITH ICICI BANK AS FOLLOWS: :(PB NO.36-39) S.NO. CHEQUE NO. DATE OF REALISATION AMOUNT PB NO. 3. RTGS 03.01.2013 2000000/- 38 4. 906856 10.01.2013 1500000/- 38 5. 906855 14.01.2013 1500000/- 38 TOTAL 5000000/- -THE AMOUNT RECEIVED/REALISED IN SB ACCOUNT OF ICIC I BANK WAS TRANSFERRED TO SBI CAPITAL GAIN ACCOUNT AS FOLLOWS: (PB NO.40-42) DATE AMOUNT PB NO. 22.01.2013 4900000/- 41 12.02.2013 760000/- 41 TOTAL 5660000/- 7. IT IS EVIDENT: ITA NO. 827/JP/2015 SMT. UMA VIJAY, JAIPUR VS. ITO, WARD- 6(3), JAIPUR . 10 - THAT THE ASSESSEE EXCEPT THE ADVANCE OF RS.500000 /- HAS RECEIVED THE BALANCE CONSIDERATION OF RS.14500000/- AFTER 31.07.2012 I.E . AFTER THE DUE DATE FOR FILING RETURN OF INCOME PRESCRIBED U/S 139(1) OF IT ACT 19 61. - THEREFORE THE SAME COULD NOT BE UTILISED EITHER F OR PURCHASE/CONSTRUCTION OF NEW HOUSE OR FOR DEPOSITING THE SAME IN CAPITAL GAIN AC COUNT BEFORE THE DUE DATE FOR FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME AS PRESCRIBED U/S 139(1) OF IT ACT 1961. - THE ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED UNUTILISED SALES CONSI DERATION OF RS.10660000/- IN CAPITAL GAIN ACCOUNT AS AND WHEN RECEIVED FROM THE BUYER AN D BEFORE FILING HER RETURN OF INCOME ON 14.02.2013.(PB NO.40-42) 8. AS ACCEPTED BY THE AO THE ASSESSEE HAS UTILISED THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.4361799/- ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE PRESCRIBED U /S 139(1), FOR MAKING PAYMENTS TO M/S ANSAL HOUSING & CONSTRUCTION LTD. FOR CONSTRUC TION OF NEW RESIDENTIAL HOUSE COMPRISING TWO ADJOINING FLATS NO.D-1002 AND D-1003 AT ANSAL HEIGHTS, SECTOR-86, GURGAON, HARYANA AS FOLLOWS:(PB NO.67-75) DATE R.NO.D- 1002/1003 AMOUNT FLAT NO.D-1002 AMOUNT FLAT NO.D-1003 TOTAL 28.02.2012 495696/495695 600000/- 600000/- 1200000/ - 12.03.2012 496960/496961 330899/- 331900/- 662799/- 14.04.2012 501131/501132 624500/- 624500/- 1249000/ - 12.05.2012 504348/504340 500000/- 624500/- 1124500/ - 12.05.2012 504343 125500/- 125500/- TOTAL UP TO THE DATE OF 139(1) 2180899/- 2180900/- 4361799/- 9. THE UNUTILISED SALES CONSIDERATION OF RS.1066000 0/- HAS BEEN DEPOSITED IN CAPITAL GAIN ACCOUNT BEFORE FILING RELEVANT RETURN OF INCO ME WITH IN THE PERIOD PRESCRIBED U/S 139(4) OF IT ACT 1961, FOR MAKING SUBSEQUENT PA YMENTS TO M/S ANSAL HOUSING & CONSTRUCTION LTD. AS PER TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF TH E AGREEMENT. 10. THE RELEVANT FACTS ON THE BASIS OF ABOVE SAID D ETAILS AND RELEVANT RETURN OF INCOME MAY BE SUMMARISED AS FOLLOWS: PARTICULARS DESCRIPTION DATE OF TRANSFER 23.01.2012 SALES CONSIDERATION OF THE PROPERTY 15000000/- ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 DUE DATE FOR FILING OF RETURN U/S 139(1) 31.07.2012 DUE DATE FOR FILING OF RETURN U/S 139(4) 31.03.2014 DATE OF FILING OF RETURN 14.02.2013 INVESTMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF NEW HOUSE BEFORE FILING OF RETURN U/S 139(1) 4361799/- INVESTMENT IN CAPITAL GAIN ACCOUNT BEFORE FILING OF RETURN U/S 139(4) 10660000/- TOTAL INVESTMENT BEFORE FILING OF RETURN U/S 139(1) AND 139(4) 15021799/- ITA NO. 827/JP/2015 SMT. UMA VIJAY, JAIPUR VS. ITO, WARD- 6(3), JAIPUR . 11 11. THE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT WHILE CONSIDERI NG THE RELEVANT ISSUE IN THE CASE OF CIT V. JAGRITI AGRWAL 339 ITR 610, FOLL OWING THE JUDGMENT OF HON. KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF FATIMA BAI V. ITO, 32 DTR 243, AND OF GAUHATI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. RAJESH KUMAR JALAN , 266 ITR 274, HAS HELD THAT DUE DATE FOR FURNISHING OF RETURN OF INCOME AS PER SECTION 139(1) IS SUBJECT TO EXTENDED PERIOD PROVIDED U/S 139(4) AND THUS JUSTI FIED THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S 54 OF IT ACT, EVEN IN CASE OF INVESTME NT MADE AFTER THE DUE DATE FOR FILING OF RETURN PRESCRIBED U/S 139(1) OF IT ACT. (COPY OF JUDGMENT ANNEXED) 12.HON. CHENNAI BENCH OF ITAT UNDER THE IDENTICAL FACTS IN THE CASE OF ITO V. A.PREM KUMAR, ITA NO.2050/MDS/2012, FOLLOWING ITS EARLIER DECISION IN THE CASE OF R.K.P.ELAYARAJAN V. DCIT, ITA NO.106/MDS/2012N HAS DECIDED THE IDENTICAL ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. (COPY OF JUDGMENT ANNEXED) 13.THE HON. MUMBAI BENCH OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF ANI L KUMAR OMKAR SINGH AURORA, V.ITO, ITA NO.4648/MUM/2013, FOLLOWING THE JUDGEMEN T OF HON. PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CITV. JAGRITI AGRWAL, AND THAT OF HON. GAUHATI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. RAJESH KUMAR JALAN(SUPRA) AND ITS OWN JUDGEMENT IN THE CASE OF KISHORE GALIYA V. ITO, 137 ITD 229, HAS DECIDED THE IDENTICAL ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. (COPY OF JUDGMENT ANNEXED). 14. EVEN WHEN THERE IS CONFLICTING VIEW OF THE HON. COCHIN BENCH OF ITAT AS RELIED BY LD. CIT(A) THE VIEW FAVORABLE TO THE ASSESSEE SHOUL D BE ADOPTED AS HELD BY HON. SUPEME COURT IN CIT V. VEGETABLE PRODUCTS LTD. 88 I TR 192. 15. THUS THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED HER RETURN OF INCOM E ON 14.02.2013, I.E. BEFORE THE DUE DATE PRESCRIBED U/S 139(4) OF IT ACT 1961 AND HAS U TILIZED THE SALES CONSIDERATION OF RS.4361799/- TOWARDS CONSTRUCTION OF NEW RESIDENTIA L HOUSE AND DEPOSITED RS.10660000/-IN CAPITAL GAIN ACCOUNT BEFORE THAT DA TE. 2.5 THE LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AU THORITIES. 2.6 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS OBSERVED THAT ASSESSE E HAS SOLD A PROPERTY SITUATED SITUATED AT 1, ANAND BHAWAN GRUH NIRMAN SA HKARI SAMITI, TAGORE NAGAR YOJANA JAIPUR ON 23.01.2012, FOR A CO NSIDERATION OF RS.1,50,00,000/-. THE ASSESSEE COMPUTED A CAPITAL G AIN OF RS.1,43,03,205/- AND CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF THE SAME U/S 54F OF I.T. ACT, ITA NO. 827/JP/2015 SMT. UMA VIJAY, JAIPUR VS. ITO, WARD- 6(3), JAIPUR . 12 1961 FOR UTILISING THE SALES CONSIDERATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF ACQUIRING NEW RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. THUS THE ASSESSEE FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME ON 14.02.2013 DECLARING CAPITAL GAIN OF RS. NIL. THE AO DISALLOWED DEDUCTION OF RS.1,01,44,025/- ON THE GRO UND THAT THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME U/S 139(1) I.E. 31.07.2012, HAS INVESTED ONLY RS.43,61,799/- FOR PU RCHASE OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. THE AO REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE OF DEPOSIT OF RS.1,06,60,000/- IN CAPITAL GAIN ACCOUNT U/S 54F(4 ) OF THE ACT, WHICH WAS DEPOSITED IN SBI CAPITAL GAIN ACCOUNT ON DIFFER ENT DATES FALLING AFTER THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME U/S 139 (1) I.E. RS.50,00,000/- ON 01.01.2013 , RS.49,00,000/- ON 22.01.2013 AND RS .7,60,000/- ON 12.02.2013. THEREFORE THE AO ALLOWED PROPORTIONATE DEDUCTION U/S 54F TO THE EXTENT OF RS.41,59,180/- ONLY (14303205*4361799 /1,50,00,000/-) AGAINST THAT OF RS.1,43,03,205/-CLAIMED BY THE ASSE SSEE AND DISALLOWED BALANCE OF RS.1,01,44,025/- WHICH HAS BEEN UPHELD B Y THE LD. CIT(A). THERE IS NO DISPUTES WITH RESPECT TO THE FACTS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS UTILISED RS. 43,61,799/- BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF RE TURN OF INCOME U/S 139(1) AND DEPOSITED RS.1,06,60,000/- IN CAPITAL GA IN ACCOUNT ON DIFFERENT DATES FALLING AFTER THE DUE DATE OF FILI NG OF RETURN OF INCOME U/S 139(1) BUT BEFORE FILING RETURN OF INCOME WITHIN TH E PERIOD ALLOWED U/S 139(4) OF THE ACT. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, TH E LD. A.R. DREW OUR ITA NO. 827/JP/2015 SMT. UMA VIJAY, JAIPUR VS. ITO, WARD- 6(3), JAIPUR . 13 ATTENTION TO THE REGISTERED SALE DEED 23.01.2012, P HOTO COPY OF POST DATED CHEQUES RECEIVED FOR SALES CONSIDERATION , RETURN MEMO OF THE BANK, BANK STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE AND STATEMENT OF CAPITAL GAIN ACCOUNT PLACED ON PB PAGE NO. 23, 28 TO 32, 36 TO 38 AND 40 TO 42 AND EXPLAINED THAT THE SALES CONSIDERATION WAS RECEIVED VIDE POST DATED CHEQUES DATED 30.11.2012 AND CHEQUES OF RS.1,00,00, 000/- WERE RETURNED UNPAID EVEN ON THAT DATE AND ULTIMATELY COULD REALI SED THE SAME ON DIFFERENT DATES BETWEEN 01.01.2013 TO 14.01.2013 VI DE DIFFERENT CHEQUES/RTGS. THEREFORE IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE FOR THE ASSESSEE TO DEPOSIT THE SAME IN CAPITAL GAIN ACCOUNT BEFORE DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME U/S 139(1). IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE AS AND WHEN RECEIVED THE AMOUNT HAS DEPOSITED THE SAME IN CAPI TAL GAIN ACCOUNT EITHER ON THE SAME DAY OR WITHIN FEW DAYS WITHOUT U TILISING THE SAME FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE. IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ABOVE SAI D EXPLANATION OF THE LD. A.R. APPEARS TO US CONVINCING TO US. THE LD. A.R. F URTHER RELYING ON VARIOUS CASE LAWS SUBMITTED THAT THE AMOUNT DEPOS ITED IN CAPITAL GAIN ACCOUNT BEFORE FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME WITHIN TH E PERIOD ALLOWED U/S 139(4) SHOULD BE CONSIDERED TO HAVE BEEN DEPOSITED BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME PRESCRIBED U/S 139(1) OF THE ACT. NOW THE ISSUE FOR OUR CONSIDERATION IS THAT WHETHER THE SAL ES CONSIDERATION INVESTED IN CAPITAL GAIN ACCOUNT WITHIN THE PERIOD ALLOWED U /S 139 (4) SHOULD ITA NO. 827/JP/2015 SMT. UMA VIJAY, JAIPUR VS. ITO, WARD- 6(3), JAIPUR . 14 ALSO BE CONSIDERED TO BE WITHIN THE PERIOD ALLOWE D U/S 139(1) OF THE ACT. WE FIND THAT THE ABOVE SAID ISSUE IS COVERED W ITHIN THE DECISION OF HONBLE . PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE O F CIT V. JAGRITI AGGARWAL, 339 ITR 610, THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE DECISION OF HONBLE COURT IS REPRODUCED AS FOLLOWS:- 10. HAVING HEARD LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES, W E ARE OF THE OPINION THAT SUB-SECTION (4) OF SECTION 139 OF THE ACT IS, IN FACT, A PROVISO TO SUB- SECTION (1) OF SECTION 139 OF THE ACT. SECTION 139 OF THE ACT FIXES THE DIFFERENT DATES FOR FILING THE RETURNS FOR DIFFEREN T ASSESSES. IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE AS THE RESPONDENT, IT IS 31ST DAY OF JULY OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IN TERMS OF CLAUSE (C) OF THE EXPLANATION 2 TO SUB-SEC TION 1 OF SECTION 139 OF THE ACT, WHEREAS SUB-SECTION (4) OF SECTION 139 PRO VIDES FOR EXTENSION IN PERIOD OF DUE DATE IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES. IT REA DS AS UNDER: '(4) ANY PERSON WHO HAS NOT FURNISHED A RETURN WITH IN THE TIME ALLOWED TO HIM UNDER SUB-SECTION (1), OR WITHIN THE TIME ALLOWED UNDER A NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECT ION 142, MAY FURNISH THE RETURN FOR ANY PREVIOUS YEAR AT ANY TIM E BEFORE THE EXPIRY OF ONE YEAR FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR OR BEFORE THE COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT WHICHEVER IS EARLIER; PROVIDED THAT WHERE THE RETURN RELATES TO A PREVIOU S YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR COMMENCING ON THE 1ST DAY OF AP RIL 1988, OR ANY EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR, THE REFERENCE TO ONE YEAR AFORESAID SHALL BE CONSTRUED AS A REFERENCE TO TWO YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR.' 11. A READING OF THE AFORESAID SUB-SECTION WOULD SH OW THAT IF A PERSON HAS NOT FURNISHED THE RETURN OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR W ITHIN THE TIME ALLOWED UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) I.E. BEFORE 31ST DAY OF JULY OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR, THE ASSESSEE CAN FILE RETURN BEFORE THE EXPIRY OF O NE YEAR FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. 12. THE SALE OF THE ASSET HAVING BEEN TAKEN PLACE O N 13.1.2006, FALLING IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR 2006-2007, THE RETURN COULD BE FI LED BEFORE THE END OF RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-2008 I.E. 31.3.2007. THUS, SUB-SECTION (4) OF SECTION 139 PROVIDES EXTENDED PERIOD OF LIMITATI ON AS AN EXCEPTION TO ITA NO. 827/JP/2015 SMT. UMA VIJAY, JAIPUR VS. ITO, WARD- 6(3), JAIPUR . 15 SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 139 OF THE ACT. SUB-SECTION (4) IS IN RELATION TO THE TIME ALLOWED TO AN ASSESSEE UNDER S UB-SECTION (1) TO FILE RETURN. THEREFORE, SUCH PROVISION IS NOT AN INDEPEN DENT PROVISION, BUT RELATES TO TIME CONTEMPLATED UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 139. THEREFORE, SUCH SUB-SECTION (4) HAS TO BE READ ALON G WITH SUB-SECTION (1). SIMILAR IS THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE DIVISION BENC H OF KARNATAKA AND GAUHATI HIGH COURTS IN FATHIMA BAI'S CASE (SUPRA) A ND RAJESH KUMAR JALAN'S CASE (SUPRA) RESPECTIVELY. 13. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE FIND THAT DUE DATE FOR FURNISHING THE RETURN OF INCOME AS PER SECTION 139(1) OF THE ACT IS SUBJECT TO THE EXTENDED PERIOD PROVIDED UNDER SUB-SECTION (4) OF SECTION 139 OF TH E ACT.' THE COORDINATE MUMBAI BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ANIL KUMAR OMKAR SINGH AURORA V. ITO, (ITA NO.4648/MUM/ 2013 ORDER DATED 6-11-2013) FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HONBLE P&H HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF JAGRITI AGGARWAL (SUPRA) HAS DECIDED TH E IDENTICAL ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AS FOLLOWS:- 6. ONLY ISSUE INVOLVES IN THIS APPEAL IS AS TO WHET HER EXTENDED PERIOD AS PER SECTION 139(4) HAS TO BE CON SIDERED FOR THE PURPOSE OF UTILIZATION OF AMOUNT OF CAPITAL GAIN FO R THE PURPOSE OF CLAIMING EXEMPTION U/S 54F OF THE ACT. THE ABOVE IS SUE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF HONBLE PUNJAB AND HARYA NA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V/S MS. JAGRITI AGGARWAL ( 2011) 339 ITR 610 (P&H), WHEREIN, THEIR LORDSHIPS HAVE HELD THAT PROVISION OF SECTION 139(4) IS NOT AN INDEPENDENT PROVISION, BUT IS RELATED TO TIME CONTEMPLATED UNDER THE PROVISION OF SECTION 13 9(1) OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, SECTION 139(4) HAD TO BE READ ALONG WI TH SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 139 AND THE DUE DATE FOR FURNISHING THE RETURN OF INCOME U/S 139(1) IS SUBJECT TO THE EXTENDED PERIOD PROVIDED U/S 139(4). HENCE, EXTENDED PERIOD U/S 139(4) HAS TO BE CONSIDERED FOR THE PURPOSE OF UTILIZATION OF THE CAPITAL GAIN AMOU NT. THE ITAT, MUMBAI FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF KISHORE GALAIYA V /S ITO (137 ITD 229) HAS HELD THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAD UTILIZ ED THE AMOUNT WHICH WAS MORE THAN THE CAPITAL GAIN EARNED TOWARDS ITA NO. 827/JP/2015 SMT. UMA VIJAY, JAIPUR VS. ITO, WARD- 6(3), JAIPUR . 16 CONSIDERATION OF NEW RESIDENTIAL HOUSE WITHIN EXTEN DED PERIOD U/S 139(4) OF THE ACT, THE CLAIM MADE BY ASS ESSEE FOR EXEMPTION U/S 54F OF THE ACT COULD NOT BE DENIED. 7. THE SIMILAR ISSUE HAD ALSO COME UP BEFORE THE HO NBLE GUWAHATI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V/S RAJESH K UMAR JALAN (SUPRA) AND THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT IF THE ASSESSEE FULFILS THE CONDITION FOR EXEMPTION U/S 54 WITHIN T HE EXTENDED TIME OF FILING OF RETURN U/S 139(4) OF THE ACT, THE ASSE SSEE IS ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION U/S 54 OF THE ACT. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, WE H OLD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO CLAIM DEDUCTION U/S 54F OF THE ACT FOR UTILIZATION OF SALE CONSIDERATION FOR INVESTMENT IN NEW RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY WITHIN DUE DATE AS STIPULATED U/S 139 OF T HE ACT. HENCE, GROUNDS OF APPEAL TAKEN BY ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED BY REVERSING THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. 2.7 WE THUS CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND R ESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS RENDERED DIRECTLY ON THE ISSUE, HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION U/S 54F IN R ESPECT OF THE SALES CONSIDERATION UTILISED WITHIN THE EXTENDED TIME OF FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME U/S 139(4) OF THE ACT, FOR PURCHASE/CONSTR UCTION OF NEW RESIDENTIAL HOUSE AND FOR INVESTMENT IN CAPITAL GAI N ACCOUNT. IT APPEARS FROM THE RECORDS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INVESTED TOT AL SUM OF RS.1,50,21,799/- ( I.E. RS.43,61,799/- IN MAKING PA YMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF NEW RESIDENTIAL HOUSE AND DEPOSIT OF RS.1,06,60 ,000/-IN CAPITAL GAIN ACCOUNT ) BEFORE FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME U/S 13 9(4) OF THE ACT, WHICH IS MORE THAN THE SALES CONSIDERATION OF RS.1,50,00, 000/- OF ORIGINAL ASSETS AND THUS THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION U/S 54F OF THE ACT OF WHOLE OF THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS.1,43,03,205/- ARISING FROM THE ITA NO. 827/JP/2015 SMT. UMA VIJAY, JAIPUR VS. ITO, WARD- 6(3), JAIPUR . 17 CAPITAL ASSETS TRANSFERRED DURING THE RELEVANT PREV IOUS YEAR. HENCE THE ADDITION OF RS.1,01,44,025/- MADE TO RETURNED INCOM E IS DELETED. THUS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 3.0 IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 04 /07/20 16 SD/- SD/- YFYR DQEKJ HKKXPUN (LALIET KUMAR) (BHAGCHAND ) U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 04/07/ 2016 *MISHRA VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSF'KR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- SMT. UMA VIJAY, JAIPUR 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- THE ITO, WARD- 6 (3), JAIPUR 3. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY@ CIT(A). 4. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT, 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 827/JP/2015) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR