Advertisement
Advertisement
Skip to content
Follow Us on
Advertisement
TOP STORIES
Income Tax

Section 54/54F exemption cannot be disallowed merely for closure of capital gain account without NOC of AO

Case Law Details

TaxGuru Citation
2022 taxguru.in 3466
Case Name
Ramesh Chander Nijhawan Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi)
Date of Judgement/Order
Only available for paid members
Related Assessment Year
2015-16
Advertisement

Ramesh Chander Nijhawan Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi)

The AO disallowed the deduction u/s 54F on the grounds that the capital gain account has been closed without the approval of the Assessing Officer and thus failed to satisfy the mandatory requirement of closing the account with due approval of the AO. The ld. CIT(A) concurred with the observation of the ld. CIT(A).

It is not in dispute that an amount of Rs.40,00,000/- has been invested in the specified bonds, in this case REC Bonds and purchased house for Rs.82,50,000/-. Hence, the observation of ld. CIT(A) that the assessee is not eligible for claim of exemption u/s 54 and u/s 54F is against the provisions of the Act. With regard to closer of the account without the NOC of the Assessing Officer, the broad provisions and compliance of the law surpass the mere default in not taking the prior permission of the ITO before closer of the account, especially when the amounts have been utilized for purchase of the house in accordance with the provisions of the Act within two years from the date of sale. Hence, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed.

FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT DELHI

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT(A)-14, New Delhi dated 30.08.2019.

2. Following grounds have been raised by the assessee:

“1. That the Honorable CIT(A)-14 has erred in law and on facts in sustaining an addition of Rs.84,55,206.00 on illegal and untenable grounds. Hence, the addition as such may be deleted.

2. That the Honorable CIT(A)-14 has erred in law and on facts in sustaining the assessment made by the ld. ACIT CIR 40(1) who is not the jurisdictional officer in this case. Hence, the assessment order, as such, may be vacated.

3. That the Honorable CIT(A)-14 has erred in law and on facts in sustaining the assessment as the assessment order was passed on 23.12.2017 while final case was heard on 27.12.2017. Hence, the assessment order as such may be vacated.

4. That the Honorable CIT(A)-14 has erred in law and on facts in sustaining the capital gain of Rs.1,39,27,692.00 as against of Rs.54,72,485.00 as declared by the assessee. Hence, the addition as such may be deleted.”

3. The assessee filed return of income on 28.08.2015 declaring income of Rs.63,35,840/-. The assessee has derived income from house property, capital gains and income from other sources.

4. The relevant undisputed facts for adjudication are as under:

Paid content

Become a Premium Member, or log in if you are already a Premium member.

Advertisement

Join TaxGuru's Network for the latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.