Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai
Neelam N. Chhabria, Mumbai vs Assessee on 23 August, 2016
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI "B" BENCH, MUMBAI
BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL
MEMBER,
AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER.
ITA. No. 8732/Mum/2010
(Assessment Year:2006-07)
Neelam N. Chhabria
B-503, Sky Walker CHS Ltd.,
4th Cross, Lokhandwalla Complex,
Andheri (W), Mumbai - 400 053 Appellant
Vs.
Income Tax Officer, 24(2)(1),
Mumbai Respondent
PAN: AADPC1242K
अपीलाथ की ओर से /By Appellant : Shri M. Subramanian, A.R.
यथ क ओर से/By Respondent : Shri Shivaji B. Ghode,
D.R.
सन
ु वाई क तार ख/Date of Hearing : 03.08.2016
घोषणा क तार ख/Date of
Pronouncement : 23.08.2016
ORDER
PER SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, J.M:
This appeal has been filed by assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-34, Mumbai, dated 24.02.2010 for A.Y. 2009-10 on following ground:
ITA No.8732/Mum/10 A.Y. 06-07 [Neelam M.Chhabria vs. ITO] Page 2 "1. The learned CIT(Appeals) was not justified in confirming the action of the learned ITO in restricting the exemption u/s 54 to Rs.25,24,280/- in place of Rs.42,26,650/- claimed by the appellant. Accordingly, he has erred in bringing to tax an amount of Rs.17,02,370/- as long term capital gains."
2. Assessee has challenged the assessment of capital gain on sale of residential house at Rs.17,02,370/- as against nil return filed by assessee. The stand of assessee has been that Assessing Officer has not considered the reinvestment in house of Rs.52lacs, whereas capital gain on sale of house was Rs.42,26,650/-. According to assessee, Assessing Officer has erred in restricting the deduction u/s.54(2) of the Act to Rs.25,24,280/- instead of Rs.42,26,650/- claimed by assessee. Assessing Officer observed that out of Rs.52lacs investment in new house Rs.29,50,000/- was taken as loan from bank only Rs.22,50,000/- was invested out of sale consideration. Assessing Officer after considering the registration charges and stamp duty has restricted the deduction u/s.54(2) of the Act to the extent of Rs.25,24,280/-.
2.1 In appeal, stand of assessee has been that facts should be considered in totality and repayment of loan of Rs.19,50,000/- should also be considered for allowing deduction u/s.54(2) of the Act. CIT(A) held that in view of plain language of Section 54(2) of the Act that the amount not utilized for purchase of new asset shall be charged to income tax. Assessing Officer was not justified in considering the total investment in new residential house u/s.54(2) of the Act amounted to Rs.52lacs, whereby capital gain on sale of old residential house was only ITA No.8732/Mum/10 A.Y. 06-07 [Neelam M. Chhabria vs. ITO] Page 3 Rs.42,26,650/-. In view of this, Assessing Officer was not justified in restricting the deduction u/s.54(2) of the Act to Rs.25,24,280/- instead of Rs.42,26,650/- as claimed by assessee. Assessing Officer is directed accordingly.
3. In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed.
Pronounced in the open Court on this the 23rd day of August, 2016.
Sd/- Sd/-
(RAJESH KUMAR) (SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Mumbai: Dated 23/08/2016
True Copy
S.K.SINHA
आदे श क त ल
प अ े
षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:-
1. राज व / Revenue
2. आ वेदक / Assessee
3. संबं#धत आ यकर आ यु%त / Concerned CIT
4. आ यकर आ यु%त- अप ील / CIT (A)
5. -वभागीय 0त0न#ध, आ यकर अप ील य अ#धकरण, मुंबई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai
6. गाड5 फाइल / Guard file.
By order/आ दे श से, उप /सहायक प ंजीकार, आ यकर अप ील य अ#धकरण, मुंबई ।