Ita/384/2015 Of Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Shri R Srinivas

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BBNGALURU DATBD THIS THR 2 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 20195_ PRESENT THR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICK VINEBT SARAN| AND THR HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA| ITA NO.384/2015 BETWEEN: 1.|PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDINGS, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE -560 OO1. «|THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 14(1) BANGALORE. _ APPBLLANTS (BY SRI E.LSANMATHI, ADV.,) AND: SHRI R.SRINIVAS,| NO.4/1, RAGHAVENDRA NILAYA,+ CROSS, MARUTHI LAYOUT, ADJ. AECS LAYOUT,BANGALORE -560 037. _ RESPONDENT THIS ITA IS FILED U/S.260A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,|1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 4.3.15 PASSED IN ITA!NO.79/BANG/2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09PRAYING TO DECIDE THE FOREGONG QUESTION OF LAW ANDSEIT ASIDE THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 4.3.15 PASSED BYTHE ITAT, ‘A’ BENCH, BANGALORE, IN APPEAL PROCEEDINGS|IN ITA NO.79/BANG/2014 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09.| THIS ITA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, |VINEET SARAN J..DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel for the appellants and perusedthe record. 2.The dispute in the present appeal relates to the|assessment year 2008-09. The facts of this case are that|the respondent-assessee had sold his property and claimed|benefit of Section 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961(for short,‘the Act’). It is not disputed that after selling the property,within three years, the entire sale amount had been utilized|for purchase of land and construction of residential house. 3.|The case of the Revenue is that since the sale|amount had not been deposited in the Capital Gains|Accounts Scheme, the assessee would not be entitled to thebenefit of Section 54F oft the Act. 4.The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of theRevenue and the appeal filed by the assessee was partly|allowed. The matter was taken up before the Tribunal,|which has allowed the claim of the assessee in toto after|recording a categorical finding that it is not disputed that theassessee had utilized the entire sale amount for purchase ofland and construction of residential house, within the. stipulated time as provided under Section 54F of the Act.While passing the order, the Tribunal, has relied on theDivision Bench decision of this Court in the case ofFathimaBat -vs- Income Tax Officer|(2009) 32 DIR 2435. — 5.Learned counsel for the Revenue has vehementlysubmitted that since there was no proper compliance ofsub-section 4 of Section 54F of the Act, in as much as noCapital Gains Account was opened by the assessee in whichthe sale proceeds had been deposited and thereafter utilizedfor the purchase of land and construction of residential|house, the benefit cannot be given to the assessee, even|though he may have utilised the entire amount for the|purpose as indicated in the aforesaid provision. This Court,in the case ofFathima Bat(supra), has, in similar facts,|allowed the benefit to the assessee therein after observing|that even though the assessee may have technically|defaulted but since the sale amount was duly utilized within|the specified period of three years, the assessee would beentitled to the benefit of Section 54F of the Act. 6.In our view, the facts of this case are similar to the one in the case otFathima Bat(Supra) and we have noreason to disagree with the law laid down by the Division| Bench of this Court in the aforesaid case. As such, in our|view, the matter is covered by the aforesaid decision andthus, no substantial question of law arises for determinationby this Court. The appeal is accordinglydismissed.| od/-/JUDGE|sd/-.JUDGE|TTL