Subramanian Swaminathan v. ACIT

Case Laws Analysis
REFERRED Pr. CIT & Anr. v. C. Gopalaswamy 2016 TaxPub(DT) 2902 (Karn-HC)
REFERRED Hasmukh N. Gala v. ITO 2015 TaxPub(DT) 3502 (Mum-Trib)
REFERRED Smt. Rajneet Sandhu v. Dy. CIT 2010 TaxPub(DT) 2141 (Chd-Trib)
REFERRED Smt. Shashi Varma v. CIT 1997 TaxPub(DT) 0268 (MP-HC)

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT


The Tax Publishers2023 TaxPub(DT) 4052 (Del-Trib) : (2023) 201 ITD 0487 IN THE ITAT, DELHI BENCH B.R.R. KUMAR, A.M. & YOGESH KUMAR U.S., J.M. Subramanian Swaminathan v. ACIT ITA No. 7904/DEL/2018 12 May, 2023 Assessee by: Sankalp Malik, Advocate Revenue by: Sanjay Kumar, Senior Departmental Representative ORDER *B.R.R. Kumar, A.M.* The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of learned Commissioner (Appeals)-43, New Delhi dated 22-10-2018. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: (1) Because the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts by rejecting the deduction under section 54F and making an enhancement of Rs. 1,73,65,056 on the ground that possession of flat was not given to the assessee, because: (1.1) The necessary ingredient under section 54F is reinvestment by way of purchase construction or purchase and construction but not possession. (1.2) The rights accrued to the assessee when the Purchase Agreement and Construction Agreement were executed and registered. (1.3) The delay in handing over the possession was not in the control of the assessee. (1.4) No tax liability accrues to the assessee in the year under consideration, as the sale proceeds were duly deposited in the Capital Gains Scheme, irrespective of any other fact. (2) Because having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in enhancing the income of the assessee, that too by recording incorrect facts that no amount was deposited in the capital gains scheme. (3) Because without prejudice to the above, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in law and on facts by disallowing the expenses to the tune of Rs. 2,83,473 incurred in lieu of purchase of the new residential unit, more so, when all evidence were duly submitted before the Authorities below. (3.1) Because the registration expenses were much over and above the amount claimed and all evidences were duly submitted before the lower authorities. (4) Because in the fact and circumstances of the case, the learned assessing officer erred in making disallowances and the learned Commissioner (Appeals) further erred in disallowing the entire deduction, rightfully claimed under section 54F of the Act. SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

The Tax Publishers2023 TaxPub(DT) 4052 (Del-Trib) : (2023) 201 ITD 0487

IN THE ITAT, DELHI BENCH

B.R.R. KUMAR, A.M. & YOGESH KUMAR U.S., J.M.

Subramanian Swaminathan v. ACIT

ITA No. 7904/DEL/2018

12 May, 2023

Assessee by: Sankalp Malik, Advocate

Revenue by: Sanjay Kumar, Senior Departmental Representative

ORDER

B.R.R. Kumar, A.M.

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of learned Commissioner (Appeals)-43, New Delhi dated 22-10-2018.

2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

(1) Because the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts by rejecting the deduction under section 54F and making an enhancement of Rs. 1,73,65,056 on the ground that possession of flat was not given to the assessee, because:

(1.1) The necessary ingredient under section 54F is reinvestment by way of purchase construction or purchase and construction but not possession.

(1.2) The rights accrued to the assessee when the Purchase Agreement and Construction Agreement were executed and registered.

(1.3) The delay in handing over the possession was not in the control of the assessee.

(1.4) No tax liability accrues to the assessee in the year under consideration, as the sale proceeds were duly deposited in the Capital Gains Scheme, irrespective of any other fact.

(2) Because having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in enhancing the income of the assessee, that too by recording incorrect facts that no amount was deposited in the capital gains scheme.

(3) Because without prejudice to the above, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in law and on facts by disallowing the expenses to the tune of Rs. 2,83,473 incurred in lieu of purchase of the new residential unit, more so, when all evidence were duly submitted before the Authorities below.

(3.1) Because the registration expenses were much over and above the amount claimed and all evidences were duly submitted before the lower authorities.

(4) Because in the fact and circumstances of the case, the learned assessing officer erred in making disallowances and the learned Commissioner (Appeals) further erred in disallowing the entire deduction, rightfully claimed under section 54F of the Act.