Ita/183/2016 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Sunil Sachdeva

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA|AT CHANDIGARH Sr. No.105 ITA No.183 of 2016 (O&M)Date of decision: 24.08.2016 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad VeTSuU ....Appellant Sunil Sachdeva ....Respondent CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.J. VAZIFDAR, CHIEF JUSTICEHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL KERR Present: Mr. T.K. Joshi, Advocatefor the appellant. RRS S.J. VAZIFDAR,CHIEF JUSTICE (QRAL) C.M. No.144044CII of 2016 For the reasons stated in the application, the delay of 980 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned, CM stands disposed of. C.M. No.144054CII of 2016 CM is allowed as prayed for, ITA No.183 of 2016 This is an appeal against the order of Tribunal in respect of the Assessment Year 2008-09. 2 According to the appellant the following substantial questions ot law arise:- (1)“Whether on the facts and circumstances ofthe ITA No.183 of 2016 (O&M) case learned ITAT was right in law in allowing deduction u/s54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 despite the assessee havingnot complied with the requirement of depositing the amountunder Section 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the due date,namely before filing of the return under Section 139(1) of theIncome Tax Act, 1961. (11)Whether on the facts and circumstances of thecase the learned ITAT 1s right in law in allowing exemption ofRs.55,70,800/- on account of investment made in residentialhouse by the company in which the assessee 1s one of thedirectors and not by the assessee (individual) as provided inlaw. 3,With reference to the first question, the alleged non-complianceof the provisions of Section 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is that theamount was paid into the Special Capital Gain Account maintained by therespondent-assessee with the same branch of the Bank after a delay of oneday, namely, on 31.07.2008 instead of on 30.07.2008. The Tribunal hasrecorded a finding of tact that the assessee had infact on the same day 1.e.30.07.2008 instructed the Bank to transfer the money from his savingaccount to Special Capital Gain Account maintained by him with the samebranch. This finding of fact cannot be said to be perverse. As a matter offact, the Bank transferred the money on the very next day. It is not therevenue's case that separate instructions were given on the next day either inwriting or orally to the Bank to transfer the amount to the Special CapitalGain Account. Therefore, the same does not raise a substantial question oflaw. The appeal in this regard is dismissed. 4The second question proceeds on the erroneous basis that theinvestment in the residential houses was made by the _ assesseeThe Company had only lent money to the assessee to enable him to ITA No.183 of 2016 (O&M) purchase the property. 5 In these circumstances, the appeal is dismissed. (S.J. VAZIFDAR)CHIEF JUSTICE August 24, 2016Jyoti I (DEEPAK SIBAL)JUDGE