Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi
Acit, New Delhi vs Mrs. Lata Goel, New Delhi on 25 September, 2024
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH "A": NEW DELHI
BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON'BLE VICE PRESIDENT
AND
SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA No. 3426/Del/2019
(Assessment Year: 2011-12)
Mrs. Lata Goel, Vs. ACIT,
D-6/5, Vasant Vihar, Circle-06, New Delhi
New Delhi
(Appellant) (Respondent)
PAN:AEEPG0966M
ITA No. 5892/Del/2015
(Assessment Year: 2011-12)
ACIT, Vs. Mrs. Lata Goel,
Circle-06, New Delhi D-6/5, Vasant Vihar,
New Delhi
(Appellant) (Respondent)
PAN:AEEPG0966M
SA No. 39/Del/2021
(In ITA No. 3426/Del/2019)
(Assessment Year: 2011-12)
Mrs. Lata Goel, Vs. ACIT,
D-6/5, Vasant Vihar, Circle-06, New Delhi
New Delhi
(Appellant) (Respondent)
PAN:AEEPG0966M
Assessee by : Shri Tarandeep Singh, FCA
Shri Sandeep Yadav, Adv
Revenue by: Ms. Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT DR
Date of Hearing 27/03/2024 & 05/07/2024
Date of pronouncement 25/09/2024
Page | 1
ITA No. 3426/Del/2019
ITA No. 5892/Del/2015
SA No. 39/Del/2021
Mrs. Lata Goel
ORDER
PER M. BALAGANESH, A. M.:
1. The appeal in ITA No.3426/Del/2019 filed by the assessee and ITA No. 5892/Del/2015 filed by the revenue for AY 2011-12, arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-24, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as „ld. CIT(A)‟, in short] in Appeal No. 242/17-18 dated 18.03.2019 against the order of assessment passed u/s 147/ 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟) dated 29.12.2017 by the Assessing Officer, ACIT, Central Circle-06, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as „ld. AO‟).
2. As these are cross appeals therefore, both appeals are taken up together and hence disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience.
3. The assessee raised the following grounds of appeal before us:-
"1. That on facts and in law notice u/s 148 dated 30th March 2017 issued for reopening and reassessing total income determined in order u/s 153A dated 27th March 2015 is bad in law and void ab initio.
2. That on facts and in law the CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that notice u/s 148 dated 30th March 2017 was issued without valid sanction u/s 151 of the Act.
3. That on facts and in law the CIT(A) has erred in upholding assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by the AO 3.1 That on facts and in law the CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that the prerequisites of assumption of valid jurisdiction in term of first proviso and third proviso to section 147 are not met rendering issue of notice u/s 148 and reassessment orders passed pursuant thereto as bad in law.
3.2 That on the facts and in law assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 by issuance of notice u/s 148 dated 30th March 2017 on a mere change of Page | 2 ITA No. 3426/Del/2019 ITA No. 5892/Del/2015 SA No. 39/Del/2021 Mrs. Lata Goel opinion is bad in law and void ab initio rendering the reassessment order as bad in law.
4. That on facts and in law the CIT(A) has erred in upholding disallowance of deduction u/s 54F of Rs 90,00,00,000.
5. That on facts and in law the AO and CIT(A) have erred in not appreciating that conditions prescribed in clause (a) to proviso of section 54F(1) are satisfied.
5.1 That on facts and in law the CIT(A) has erred in upholding that that property titled "Basement, D-6/5, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi" is a separate residential house.
6. Without prejudice on facts and in law the CIT(A) has erred in not allowing deduction for expenses incurred on "transfer" amounting to Rs. 99,27,000/-.
7. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act.
8. That on facts and in law the orders passed by ACIT, Central Circle-06, New Delhi (hereinabove referred to as the "AO") and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-24 {herein above referred to as the "CIT(A)"} are bad in law and void ab initio inter alia passed in violation to principals of natural justice."
4. The revenue has raised the following grounds before us:-
"1. The order of Ld. CIT(A) is not correct in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 60 Crores made by AO on account of claim of deduction u/s 54F of the I.T. Act on LTCG.
2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by ignoring the facts that the assessee had already used Rs. 60 Crores for making donation/investment in FDRs out of total sale consideration of Rs. 90 Cr.
3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by ignoring the facts that Rs. 60 Cr. Deposited in capital gains accounts scheme was not out of sale consideration but was sourced as loan which does not qualify for deduction u/s 54F.
4. On the facts circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by ignoring the fact that the assessee cannot be Page | 3 ITA No. 3426/Del/2019 ITA No. 5892/Del/2015 SA No. 39/Del/2021 Mrs. Lata Goel allowed deduction on account of donations as well as u/s 54F on the same amount and further interest u/s 24 of the Act on account of interest on loan if any claimed by the assessee.
5. The appellant craves leave to add, amend any/all the grounds of appeal before or during the course of hearing of the appeal."
5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The return of income for assessment year 2011-12 was filed by the assessee on 31.12.2011 declaring total income of ₹70,87,301/-. In the said return of income, the claimed deduction u/s 54F of the Act to the tune of ₹90 crores on the account of reinvestment made in another residential house property. The assessee during the year sold shares of FIITJEE Ltd for ₹90 crores and reinvested in new residential house property within the stipulated time and claimed deduction u/s 54F of the Act. Accordingly, long-term capital gain was reported Rs. Nil by the assessee.
6. A search and seizure action was carried out u/s 132 of the Act on FIITJEE Group of cases on 17.12.2012. The assessee was also covered in the said search. Accordingly notice u/s 153A of the Act stood issued to the assessee on 13.08.2013. An order was passed by the ld AO u/s 153A of the Act on 27.03.2015, wherein the claim of deduction u/s 54F of the Act was restricted to ₹30 crores and difference of ₹60 crores was added by the ld AO. The assessee preferred an appeal before the ld CIT(A) on 22.04.2015 against the said order. The ld CIT(A) vide his order dated 28.08.2015 allowed the appeal of the assessee by directing the ld AO to delete the disallowance made in the sum of ₹60 crores towards denial of deduction u/s 54F of the Act. Aggrieved by the said order of the ld CIT(A), the revenue is in appeal before us in ITA No. 5892/Del/2015.
Page | 4 ITA No. 3426/Del/2019 ITA No. 5892/Del/2015 SA No. 39/Del/2021 Mrs. Lata Goel
7. Later the assessment for assessment year 2011-12 was sought to be reopened by the ld AO vide issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act on 30.03.2017 after recording the following reasons:-
"Annexure-A Reason for issue of notice u/s 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961 In the case of Smt. Lata Goel for the A.Y. 2011-12 Deduction u/s 54F was claimed by the assessee on account of deposits made in the Capital Gains Account Scheme on account of deposits of proceeds of sale of shares of M/s FIIT Jee Ltd. As per provisions of the act, deduction allowed u/s 54(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1967 is subject to the provisioris of section 54(a) (ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The benefits available u/s 54F(4) are not available to assessees owning more than one residential house on the date of transfer of original asset (shares FIIT Jee Ltd.). of M/s FIIT JEE Ltd) The relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are being quoted below-
Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall apply where-
(a) The assessee,-
(i) owns more than one residential house, other than the new asset, on the date of transfer of the original asset; or
(ii) purchases any residential house, other than the new asset, within a period on one year after the date of transfer of the original asset, or
(iii) constructs any residential house, other than the new asset, within a period of three years after the date of transfer of the original asset; and
(b) The income from such residential house, other than the one residential house owned on the date of transfer of the original asset, is chargeable under the head "Income form house property".
Perusal of the information available on South Delhi Municipal Corporation web-site shows that the assessee owned two residential Page | 5 ITA No. 3426/Del/2019 ITA No. 5892/Del/2015 SA No. 39/Del/2021 Mrs. Lata Goel property 1) D-6/5, SF, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-57(property record no.- 1653011000806000) and 2) D-6/5, BM, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-57 on the date of transfer of original asset. It is further noted that as per municipal records available on the SDMC web-sites Ground Floor and First floors of D-6/5, Vasant Vihar are owned by Sh. Dinesh Goel and Smt. Monila Goel respectively. Thus, it is evident that different floor of the property are separate residential properties. Consequently, it is evident that the assessee owned two residential properties on the date of transfer of original asset.
Further, the assessee has utilized the amount towards purchase of residential house bearing no. E-27, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi and claimed exemption of capital gain u/s 54F. Thus, as per relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the assessee is not eligible to claim deduction u/s 54F on the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Therefore, the undersigned has reason to believe that an amount of Rs. 90,00,00,000/- has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Act, for the reason of failure on part of the assessee to fully and truly disclose her income for the AY 2011-12.
(Rajeev Ranjan) Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-06, New Delhi
8. The assessee filed elaborate objections to the said reasons recorded vide letter dated 10.10.2017, which are enclosed in pages 6 to 42 of the paper book. These objections were disposed of by the ld AO by a separate speaking order on 24.11.2017, which are enclosed in pages 43 to 48 of the paper book. Thereafter, the re-assessment was proceeded upon in the hands of the assessee and re-assessment order stood passed by the ld AO u/s 147 of the Act denying deduction u/s 54F of the Act, completely to the tune of ₹90 crores on the ground that assessee was owning more than one residential house on the date of transfer of original asset i.e. shares of FIITJEE Ltd. The assessee preferred an appeal against this reassessment order framed by the ld AO before ld CIT(A). The ld CIT(A) vide order dated 18.03.2019, dismissed the appeal of the assessee by upholding the disallowance made by the ld Page | 6 ITA No. 3426/Del/2019 ITA No. 5892/Del/2015 SA No. 39/Del/2021 Mrs. Lata Goel AO. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us in ITA No. 3426/Del/2019 challenging both the validity of reassessment as well as the disallowance made u/s 54F of the Act on merits.
9. As could be seen from the reasons recorded and the reassessment order framed by the ld AO, the only reason for denial of deduction u/s 54F of the Act is on the ground that assessee was owning more than one residential house on the date of transfer of shares of FIITJEE Ltd (i.e. the original asset). The ld AO in order to arrive at this conclusion placed heavy reliance on the information available on South Delhi Municipal Corporation (SDMC) website wherein, it was shown that assessee owned two residential properties i.e. a) D-6/5, Second Floor, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-57 and b) D-6/5, Basement, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-57. The ld AO further noted that as per the municipal records available on the SDMC website, Ground floor and First Floor of D-6/5, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi are owned by Shri Dinesh Goel (Son of the assessee) and Smt. Monila Goel (daughter in law of assessee) respectively. The ld AO accordingly, concluded that different floors of the properties are owned by different persons and that each floor of the property are separate residential properties and consequentially the assessee owned more than two residential properties i.e. basement and second floor on the date of transfer of original asset. To address this issue, we find that the following facts which are supported by proper registered sale deeds and third- party documents require consideration:-
a. D-6/5, Basement, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi was purchased by Mr. K. K. Goel HUF along with assessee vide registered sale deed dated 02.07.2001. In this, the assessee was having 50% share in the capacity of co-owner.
Page | 7 ITA No. 3426/Del/2019 ITA No. 5892/Del/2015 SA No. 39/Del/2021 Mrs. Lata Goel b. D-6/5, Second Floor, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi was purchased by Ms Monila Goel (assessee‟s daughter in law) and assessee vide registered sale dated 28.01.2008. In this, the assessee was having 50% of share in the capacity of co-owner.
c. D-6/5, Ground Floor, Vasant Vihar was purchased by Ms. Monila Goel (daughter in law) along with Mr. DK Goel (assessee‟s son) vide registered sale deed 02.07.2001. Both parties are having equal share in the said property.
d D-6/5, First Floor, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi was purchased by Ms Monila Goel. Physical possession of the said property was taken over on 02.09.2014, but not registered as 100% payment is made to the seller only in financial year 2013-14.
10. We find that the lower authorities had treated the basement of the building to be a separate residential house to deny the claim of deduction u/s 54F of the Act to the assessee. First of all, the entire residential property comprising of basement, ground floor, first floor, and second floor is to be construed as a single residential property, each floor owned by several individuals. Hence, effectively there is no absolute ownership at all of any of the individuals in the subject mentioned whole residential property. All of them are only co-owners in the residential property of D-6/5, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. Now whether Basement of a property could per se be considered as an independent residential property is to be seen. In this regard, the extract of building bye laws of DDA 1983, which are enclosed in pages 49 to 54 of the paper book requires to be considered wherein, it has been specifically mentioned that basement shall not be used for residential purpose and the same Page | 8 ITA No. 3426/Del/2019 ITA No. 5892/Del/2015 SA No. 39/Del/2021 Mrs. Lata Goel could be used only for storage of household or other goods for non- inflammable materials, could be used as darkroom, strong room, Bank cellars, could be used for the keeping the airconditioning equipment and other machines used for services of utilities of the building, could be used as parking places and garages, could be used as stack rooms and Library and could be used for office or commercial purpose provided it is air-conditioned. There is absolutely no evidence brought on record by the lower authorities that the said basement was used by the assessee for any of the aforesaid purposes. In respect of this issue , the allegation leveled by the revenue that basement is used for residential purposes by the assessee is without any basis. In this regard, the assessee had not derived any income in any manner whatsoever from the subject mentioned whole property of D-6/5, Vansat Vihar, New Delhi. It is pertinent to note that no rental income has been assessed under the head "income from house property" by the lower authorities, either for Basement portion, ground floor, first floor or second floor in the hands of any of the individual owners for assessment years 2007-08 to 2013-14. From the above facts, it is crystal clear that basement is indeed not used for residential purposes in the instant case and is also prohibited to be used for residential purposes by DDA building bye laws. Further, the lower authorities had not brought any evidence on record in the instant case to prove whether the basement area has been used for residential purposes by the assessee. Absent such evidence and in view of the specific restrictions by DDA building bye laws, it could be safely concluded that the basement of D-6/5, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi was not used for residential purposes. In any event, the basement area cannot be by any stretch of imagination be considered as an independent property in the facts and circumstances of the instant case as it is Page | 9 ITA No. 3426/Del/2019 ITA No. 5892/Del/2015 SA No. 39/Del/2021 Mrs. Lata Goel common to all the residents staying in ground floor, first floor and second floor. It is not the case of the revenue that basement area had been allowed by the assessee to be used by other family members on rental basis. Neither any rent was received/ assessed in the hands of the assessee either on deemed rent on fair market value under the head "income from house property". Hence, the basement area cannot be considered as a separate residential property. In view of this decision, it could be safely concluded that the assessee was owning only one house property on the date of transfer of shares of FIITJEE Ltd. Hence, there was no prohibition for the assessee to claim deduction u/s 54F of the Act for re-investment made in another residential house property.
11. There is absolutely no requirement in the law that the very same sale proceeds of shares of FIITJEE Limited should be utilised for re- investment in another residential house property. The sale proceeds of shares could be utilized by the assessee for any purpose as per her requirement and thereafter, when the new property was to be purchased, she could either reinvest out of her other income or even by loan funds. What is required to be understood here is that the money has no colour. In fact, the proceedings u/s 54F of the Act allows purchase of a new residential property even one year before the date of transfer of original asset. Hence, obviously and legally the statute could not have insisted that the very same sale proceeds of the shares should be re-invested in residential house property. Hence, the objection raised by the revenue in this regard is summarily dismissed.
12. With regard to another allegation leveled by the ld AO that the assessee was also owning another property at H 41, Senior Citizen Complex welfare Society, Greater Noida, it was submitted that the said Page | 10 ITA No. 3426/Del/2019 ITA No. 5892/Del/2015 SA No. 39/Del/2021 Mrs. Lata Goel property was acquired by assessee‟s husband Sri Kanti Kumar Goyal by taking the possession on 25.11.2001. The consideration for said property was paid by assessee‟s husband Shri Kanti Kumar Goyal out of his own sources. It was submitted that this fact is available in the assessment records of assessee‟s husband for assessment year 2008-09. Though this was only an allegation, we find that this property was not even considered as a reason or a ground by the lower authorities for denying deduction u/s 54F of the Act in the hands of the assessee, hence no opinion is hereby framed by us on the same.
13. It is pertinent to note that all the documents proving ownership of each floor of the property including the basement area of D-6/5, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi have been duly furnished by the assessee before the lower authorities in the original search assessment proceedings framed u/s 153A of the Act itself. The ld AO had examined the same in the search assessment proceedings. This was also examined by the ld CIT(A) while deleting the disallowance made u/s 54F of the Act. Hence, it could be safely concluded that an opinion was indeed framed by the ld AO on the said documents and on the issue of claim of deduction u/s 54F of the Act. Admittedly, in the present case a notice u/s 148 of the Act stood issued to the assessee on 30.03.2017, which is beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. Hence, the law requires that the ld AO should bring on record the failure on the part of the assessee to make and full and true disclosure of all material facts relevant for the purpose of assessment. As stated earlier, all the materials were indeed furnished by the assessee in the original search assessment proceedings itself, both before the ld AO as well as before the ld CIT(A). Hence, there cannot be any failure at all on the part of the assessee to furnish the Page | 11 ITA No. 3426/Del/2019 ITA No. 5892/Del/2015 SA No. 39/Del/2021 Mrs. Lata Goel requisite details. Accordingly, the proviso to section 147 of the Act is not satisfied at all in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. Hence, the ld AO could not have validly assumed jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. The only information in any case that is available or which is being relied upon by the ld AO for reopening the assessment is the information available on SDMC website. First of all, any information provided in any website cannot be construed as a relevant material for drawing adverse inference against the assessee. Further, the information available in the Government website about any person or any person‟s possession could have to be construed as an information available in public domain and cannot be construed as a fresh tangible material that had come into the possession of the ld AO warranting reopening of assessment. Hence, the reopening of assessment fails on this count also.
14. Further, we find that based on the very same information available on SDMC website, in the wealth tax proceedings of the assessee for assessment year 2013-14, ld. Commissioner of Wealth Tax(Appeals), [in short CWT(A)] sought to issue enhancement notice to the assessee in the wealth tax proceedings. The assessee gave a detailed reply for the enhancement notice by specifically stating that the assessee owned only basement and second floor of D-6/5, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi and that the other properties mentioned in the SDMC website conferring ownership to the assessee were categorically denied. It was also clarified that merely because in SDMC website, basement and second floor were given separate property ID numbers, it does not make these accessible as two separate properties under Wealth Tax proceedings and cannot be construed as two separate dwelling units. Even in the said Wealth Tax Page | 12 ITA No. 3426/Del/2019 ITA No. 5892/Del/2015 SA No. 39/Del/2021 Mrs. Lata Goel Appellate proceedings, the assessee again clarified that the entire property D-6/5, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi is a single residential house property, where all the family members of the assessee are staying together, even though different floors are owned by different family members. This clearly establishes the fact of joint ownership of the property. The ld CWT(A) did not agree to the aforesaid contentions and levied Wealth Tax on the assessee for assessment 2013-14 by treating each floor as a separate independent property, including the basement. The assessee carried this matter to the Tribunal. This tribunal in WTA No. 224/Del/2019 dated 12.01.2021 for AY 2013-14 dismissed the plea of the revenue and held that different floors of a property cannot be construed as a independent residential unit and instead had to be construed only as a single residential unit and accordingly deleted the action of the ld. CWT(A) levying wealth tax on the same. Hence, the issue has already been decided on merits i.e. basement and second floor owned by the assessee cannot be construed as two separate residential properties as already been decided by the Tribunal in assesse‟s own case in Wealth Tax proceedings stated supra. Hence it could be safely concluded that on the date of transfer of original asset, the assessee was having only one residential house property.
15. The law is very well settled that merely because a residential home consisting of several independent residential units, it will not have an impact on claim of deduction u/s 54F of the Act. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT V. Gita Duggal reported in 357 ITR 153 (Del). Relevant portion of the said order is reproduced herein below:-
Page | 13 ITA No. 3426/Del/2019 ITA No. 5892/Del/2015 SA No. 39/Del/2021 Mrs. Lata Goel "9. There could also be another angle. Section 54/54F uses the expression "a residential house". The expression used is not "a residential unit". This is a new concept introduced by the assessing officer into the section. Section 54/54F requires the assessee to acquire a "residential house" and so long as the assessee acquires a building, which may be constructed, for the sake of convenience, in such a manner as to consist of several units which can, if the need arises, be conveniently and independently used as an independent residence, the requirement of the Section should be taken to have been satisfied. There is nothing in these sections which require the residential house to be constructed in a particular manner. The only requirement is that it should be for the residential use and not for commercial use. If there is nothing in the section which requires that the residential house should be built in a particular manner, it seems to us that the income tax authorities cannot insist upon that requirement. A person may construct a house according to his plans and requirements. Most of the houses are constructed according to the needs and requirements and even compulsions. For instance, a person may construct a residential house in such a manner that he may use the ground floor for his own residence and let out the first floor having an independent entry so that his income is augmented.
It is quite common to find such arrangements, particularly post- retirement. One may build a house consisting of four bedrooms (all in the same or different floors) in such a manner that an independent residential unit consisting of two or three bedrooms may be carved out with an independent entrance so that it can be let out. He may even arrange for his children and family to stay there, so that they are nearby, an arrangement which can be mutually supportive. He may construct his residence in such a manner that in case of a future need he may be able to dispose of a part thereof as an independent house. There may be several such considerations for a person while constructing a residential house. We are therefore, unable to see how or why the physical structuring of the new residential house, whether it is lateral or vertical, should come in the way of considering the building as a residential house. We do not think that the fact that the residential house consists of several independent units can be permitted to act as an impediment to the allowance of the deduction under Section 54/54F. It is neither expressly nor by necessary implication prohibited.
For the above reasons we are of the view that the Tribunal took the correct view. No substantial question of law arises for our consideration. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs"
Page | 14 ITA No. 3426/Del/2019 ITA No. 5892/Del/2015 SA No. 39/Del/2021 Mrs. Lata Goel
16. Similar view were taken by Hon‟ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gumanmal Jain reported in 394 ITR 686 (Mad) and the decision of the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Devdas Naik reported 366 ITR 12 (Bom).
17. In view of the aforesaid observations and respectfully following the judicial precedents relied upon hereinabove, we have no hesitation to quash the reassessment proceedings on the ground that the assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Act is not sustainable in the eyes of law by the ld AO in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. Further, even on merits, the assessee would be entitled for deduction u/s 54F of the Act of ₹90 crores. Grounds raised by the assessee are allowed.
18. In the revenue‟s appeal, the denial of deduction u/s 54F of the Act is only for the reason that the assessee had not utilized the sale proceeds of shares of FIITJEE Ltd in its entirety for making re-investment in residential property. This has already been addressed by us that money has no colour and provisions of Section 54F of the Act even permits the assessee to make investment in new house property prior to the date of transfer of original asset. Main grievance of the revenue is that the assessee had used part of the sale proceeds of shares of FIITJEE Limited for making donations to some trust. Accordingly, the AO had concluded that the transaction between FIITJEE and Alert Buildtech is not genuine and that were also made the basis for denial of deduction u/s 54F of the Act. In this regard, it was specifically clarified before the ld AO that the assessee had not even made any claim of deduction u/s 80G of the Act in respect of donation paid to trust in the computation of income or during the course of assessment proceedings. In the instant case, there has been an actual deposit of money on 28.04.2011 in capital Page | 15 ITA No. 3426/Del/2019 ITA No. 5892/Del/2015 SA No. 39/Del/2021 Mrs. Lata Goel gains account scheme and ₹60 crores on 29.07.2011. Both the deposits are within the prescribed time limit as per statute. It is a fact that assessee had received loan of ₹60 crores from Alert Buildtech and utilized the same for making investment in capital gain account scheme. The ld AO had accepted the said loan to be genuine and had not resorted to make any addition u/s 68 of the Act in respect of the said loan. Hence, the entire allegations of the revenue are absolutely without any basis. In view of the aforesaid observations, the grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed.
19. Since the impugned appeals are disposed of, the adjudication of Stay Application becomes infructuous.
20. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and stay application of the assessee is dismissed as infructuous.
Order pronounced in the open court on 25/09/2024.
-Sd/- -Sd/-
(SAKTIJIT DEY) (M. BALAGANESH)
VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Dated: 25/09/2024
A K Keot
Copy forwarded to
1. Applicant
2. Respondent
3. CIT
4. CIT (A)
5. DR:ITAT
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
ITAT, New Delhi
Page | 16