P&H HC: Eyewitness Account Not Credible if Eyewitness Directly Identifies Accused in Court  ||  Delhi HC: Conditions u/s 45 PMLA Have to Give Way to Article 21 When Accused Incarcerated for Long  ||  Delhi High Court: Delhi Police to Add Grounds of Arrest in Arrest Memo  ||  Kerala High Court: Giving Seniority on the Basis of Rules is a Policy Decision  ||  Del. HC: Where Arbitrator has Taken Plausible View, Court Cannot Interfere u/s 34 of A&C Act  ||  Ker. HC: No Question of Estoppel Against Party Where Error is Committed by Court Itself  ||  Supreme Court: Revenue Entries are Admissible as Evidence of Possession  ||  SC: Mere Breakup of Relationship Between Consenting Couple Can’t Result in Criminal Proceedings  ||  SC: Bar u/s 195 CrPC Not Attracted Where Proceedings Initiated Pursuant to Judicial Order  ||  NTF Gives Comprehensive Suggestions on Enhancing Better Working Conditions of Medical Professions    

Maninder Kartik, Gurgaon vs DCIT, Delhi - (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) (20 Sep 2023)

Depositing unutilized amount in special account is only a procedural matter, non-compliance thereof cannot result in negating deductions claimed under Section 54 of IT Act

MANU/ID/1344/2023

Direct Taxation

In the assessment order, the Assessing Officer made addition of Long Term Capital Gain of Rs.90,72,800 upon sale of house property. The assessee has claimed deduction under Section 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 however, the same was denied by the Assessing Officer.Against this order, the assessee appealed before the Learned CIT(A). The Learned CIT(A) allowed deduction for the amount spent up to the date of filing of return of Rs.27 lakhs only. The assessee has claimed that, the assessee has complied with the requirement and has made the rest of the payment was not accepted by the Learned CIT(A).

Depositing the unutilized amount in a special account is only a procedural matter, and non-compliance thereof cannot result in negating the deduction claimed under Section 54 of the Act, if the other requirements are complied with.

Present Tribunal refers to the order of the Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Venkata Dilip Kumar. In this case, it was held that where assessee is in a position to satisfy the requirements as envisaged in under Section 54(2) or 54(1) of the Act and the assessee could not be denied exemption under Section 54 for mere non-compliance of requirement under section 54(2) of the Act.

Examining the present case and touchstone of the case laws, it is a claim of the assessee that the assessee has made the required payment in the next week itself from the date of filing of return. Hence, the assessee has claimed that he is eligible for deduction. The factual veracity as to whether the balance payment has been done within the specified period needs to be checked by the Assessing Officer. Hence, present Court remit this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer to examine the payment during the specified period and thereafter pass order as per law. Appeal of the assessee allowed.

Tags : ASSESSMENT   DEDUCTION   ELIGIBILITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved