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
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.