Itl/69/2010 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-I, Nagpur v. Shri. Purushottamdas Bagri, Nagpur

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYNAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.69/2010 (The Commissioner of Income Tax – I, Nagpur .vrs. Shri Purushottam Bagri, Nagpur) Office Notes, Office Memoranda ofCoram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & P.D. KODE, JJ. DATE : DECEMBER 16, 2011. Heard Shri Anand Parchure, learned counsel for the appellant. Contention is, in the light of order dated 25.11.2011, the Commissioner of Income Tax–I, Nagpur on 25.3.2009 interfered in assessment order dated 30.11.2006 and deleted the deduction under Section 54 EC of the Income Tax Act allowed by the Income Tax Officer Ward–I (I), Nagpur. The order shows that out of sole consideration of Rs.67,13,000/- in Section 263 proceeding, the said CIT has accepted Rs.48,31,966/- as long term capital gain. The deduction of Rs.21,30,000/- has been disallowed and, therefore, taxable long term capital gain has been worked out to Rs.27,01,966/-. The facts show that this amount also included sale consideration received by assessee before actual transfer of immovable property to the builder. The dates of receipt and then investments made are given in paragraph no.2 of Section 263 order. Assessing Officer had treated investments dated 18.7.2002 (Rs.12,40,000/-) and dated 22.9.2003 (Rs.2,00,000) prior to 6.10.2003 (date accepted as date of final transfer) also eligible under Section 54EC of the Income Tax Act. C.I.T. did not accept this eligibility as amount was received before 6.10.2003 and I.T.A.T. has not accepted its view. After hearing Advocate Parchure in the present facts, we find that the date of transfer is not in dispute and the advances received are also not shown to be unrelated with the property. Thus, the said amount is, in fact, consideration for sale and this fact is also not in dispute. The ITAT has, therefore, taken correct view of the controversy. We find no substantial question of law arising. The appeal is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE