ITAT DELHI BENCH ‘G’
Sunil Sachdeva
versus
Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax
IT Appeal No. 4179 (Delhi) of 2011
[ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09]
Date of Pronouncement – 15.01.2013
ORDER
ShamimYahya, Accountant Member
This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Panchkula dated 26.8.2011 pertaining to assessment year 2008-09.
2. The grounds raised read as under:-
1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Panchkula (“the CIT(A)”) erred in law in upholding the action of the assessing officer in denying the appellant’s claim for exemption of Rs.l,22,23,250 under Section 54F of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”).
1.1 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in law holding that the action of the appellant in issuing verbal directions to the bank to transfer unutilized net consideration arising from the sale of shares of Capital Advertising Private Limited (“CAPL”) to the Special Capital Gains Account did not, in law, constitute “deposit” on such date of such net consideration in the Special Capital Gains Account as required by Section 54F(4) of the Act.
1.2 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in law in holding that non-furnishing of proof of deposit of net consideration on 30.7.2008 in the Special Capital Gains Account was fatal to the claim of the appellant for exemption under Section 54F(4) of the Act.
1.3 That, without prejudice, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the unutilized net consideration arising from sale of shares of CAPL having being considered by the assessing officer as deposited in the Special Capital Gains Account on 31.07.2008, i.e., before date stipulated under Section 139(1) for filing of return of income, the exemption claimed under section 54F of the Act was admissible in law.
2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in law in enhancing the assessment by withdrawing the appellant’s claim for exemption of Rs.55,70,800 under Section 54F of the Act.
2.1 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in denying exemption of RS.55,70,800 under Section 54F of the Act on the ground that the said amount had been paid by CAPL (and not by the appellant) to the builder towards construction of residential property of the appellant.
2.2 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the appellant had duly repaid the aforesaid amount of RS.55,70,800 to CAPL, which CAPL had originally paid to the builder towards construction of residential property of the appellant on behalf of the appellant.
2.3 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in failing to appreciate that Section 54F(1) of the Act did not contemplate one to one correlation between the proceeds/consideration arising on sale of long term capital asset and utilization thereof for the purchase/construction of residential property.
The appellant craves leave to add to, alter, delete, modify or vary the above grounds of appeal at or before the time of the hearing.
3. In this case during the course of assessment proceedings, Assessing Officer noticed that assessee sold shares of M/s Capital Advertising Pvt. Ltd. for a sale consideration of Rs. 5,62,87,500/-. Assessee claimed deduction of Rs. 1,22,23,250/- u/s. 54F of the I.T. Act. The assessee has invested Rs. 1,22,23,250/- on 31.7.2008 in the special gain account maintained with the Syndicate Bank. The claim of the assessee u/s. 54F of the Act was rejected by the Assessing Officer on the following reasons:-
