I.T.A. No. 1670/Kol./2011, (Assessment Year: 2006-07). Case: Income Tax Officer Vs Poonam Jalan. ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal)

Case NumberI.T.A. No. 1670/Kol./2011, (Assessment Year: 2006-07)
CounselFor Appellant: Shri Ajit Kr. Khan, JCIT, Sr. D.R. and For Respondents: Shri Pawan Kumar Agrawal
JudgesN.S. Saini, Member (A) and George Mathan, Member (J)
IssueIncome Tax Act, 1961 - Section 54
Judgement DateJune 17, 2013
CourtITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal)

Order:

(ITAT Kolkata 'B' Bench)

  1. This is an appeal filed by the revenue against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XIX, Kolkata in Appeal No. 592/CIT(A)-VI/07-08/Ward-6(1) dated 14.09.2011 for the assessment year 2006-07. Shri Ajit Kr. Khan, ld. D.R. represented on behalf of the Revenue and Shri Pawan Kumar Agrawal, FCA, represented on behalf of the assessee.

  2. In the revenue's appeal, the Revenue has challenged the action of ld. CIT(Appeals) in directing the Assessing Officer to grant the deduction under section 54 of the Act. It was the submission by the ld. D.R. that the assessee had sold a property and had invested in another property. It was the submission that the flat purchased by the assessee was booked by M/s. Ayush Finvest Pvt. Ltd. and subsequently an agreement was entered into between M/s. Ayush Finvest Pvt. Ltd. and the assessee and two others. It was the submission that as the assessee had made the payment to M/s. Ayush Finvest Pvt. Ltd. and not the promoter developer, the Assessing Officer had denied the assessee benefit of exemption under section 54 of the Act. It was the submission that ld. CIT(Appeals) has wrongly directed the Assessing Officer to grant the assessee benefit of deduction under section 54 of the Act.

  3. In reply, ld. A.R. vehemently supported the order of ld CIT(Appeals). It was the submission that before the due date of filing the return, the assessee had paid Rs. 11,25,627/- to M/s. Ayush Finvest Pvt. Ltd. and the total cost of the flat was Rs. 40,26,460/-. It was the submission that the assessee had appropriated the capital gains for the...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT