Relied On The Earlier Judgment Of This Court In The Caseof Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. Arriving At Such A Conclusion. Therefore, We Are Of Theview That The Said Substantial Question Of L

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU|ON THE 5 DAY OF DECEMBER, 2018 BEFORE THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH| AND| THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN. INCOME TAXK APPEAL NO.21/7 OF 20 BEI|WEE 1THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX. 5 FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU. 2 |THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF | INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1(2)(1),2 FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING,8OQ FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA,BENGALURU. ... APPELLANTS | (BY SRI K.V. ARAVIND, ADVOCATE). ANI SHRI DILIP RANJIREKARNO.6B, NITESH MAYFAIR,31, KASTURBA ROAD CROSS,BENGALURU. ... RESPONDENT THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL [IS FILED UNDERSECTION 260A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961,|PRAYING|TO.FORMULATETHE.SUBSTANTIALQUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN AND ALLOW|THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY.THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU,IN I.T.A. NO.858/BANG/2016 DATED 10-11-2017|CONFIRMINGTHE|ORDER|OF|THE.APPELLATECOMMISSIONER AND CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED.BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,|CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BENGALURU. THIS INCOME TAK APPEAL COMING ON FORADMISSION.THISDAY,RAV]MALIMATH,|J.,DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT The assessee is a Consultant. He filed his returnof income for the Assessment Year 2012-13 declaring aincome of Rs.1,18,03,300/-. His case was taken up for|scrutiny and the assessment was completed under|Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (for short,‘the Act’). The assessee’s income was determined at.Rs.5,16,93,547/- based on additions and deletions.Aggrieved by the same, tne assessee preferred anappeal before the Commissioner of Income _ Ta(Appeals). The appeal was partly allowed by granting relief. The Authority deleted the additions made by theAssessing Officer on account of denial of exemption|under Section 54 of the Act. However, he did not.render any finding on the variations made by the’Assessing Officer to the computation of the long term|capital gain. In respect of the additions on account of |withdrawal fromprovident.fundamount,tne|CommissionerofIncomeTax(Appeals) celetedRs.82,00,783/- without rendering any finding in respect.of the interest received on Provident Fund balance.Aggrieved by the same, the Revenue and assessee|approacned the Tribunal. Tne Tribunal partly allowed|the appeal filed Dy the Revenue as well as the|assessee’s cross-opbjection. Questioning the same, tneRevenue has filed this appeal on the _ followinsubstantial question of law: Whether on the facts and In the’circumstances of the case and in law,the Tribunal is rignt in law in holding| that assessee is entitled for Section 54|deductionInrespectOf|amount|investeq within one year as non-completion of the construction of flat.was beyond tne control of the assesseeby placing reliance on the decision of B.S. Shanthkumeri and Sambandam|Udaykumar of this Hon’ble Court? 2. The Tribunal, while considering the said issue, relied on the earlier judgment of this Court in the case|of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX v. SAMBANDAMNUDAYKUMAR reported in (2012) 19 TAXMANN.COM 17 (KAR.), wherein it was held that the assessee had)invested certain amounts within a period of twelve|montns from the date of realisation of sale proceeds otfShare. Tne sale deed was produced before the)Assessing Authority showing the transfer of property in|his name. The assessee was also put in possession of |the property. Tnerefore, the material indicated that|the assessee had invested tne sale consideration In. acquiring a residential premises and taken possession|of the same. The object of enacting Section 54 of the|Act is to encourage investment in a residential buildingis completely fulfilled. It was held that the Tribunal|was justified in extending the benefit of Section 54F of the Act to the extent of investment made within a.period of twelve montns. acquiring a residential premises and taken possession|of the same. The object of enacting Section 54 of the|Act is to encourage investment in a residential buildingis completely fulfilled. It was held that the Tribunal|was justified in extending the benefit of Section 54F of the Act to the extent of investment made within a.period of twelve montns. 3. In the instant case, the investment is made in.a new property. The construction was not completed|within a period of three years as narrated in Section 54|of the Act. The delay was not because of the assessee,but beyond nis control, since the construction was put)up by the builder. He has invested the amount ofRs.2,26,82,097. Therefore, following tne aforesaidjudgment, the Tribunal rigntly neld that the Said’investment is made towards construction of the'property. Thnerefore, it requires to be exempted. Under these circumstances, we do not find any error in arriving at such a conclusion. Therefore, we are of the|view that the said substantial question of law would not| arise for consideration in this appeal. 4. However, the learned counsel for the appellants pleads that based on the available material,yet anotner substantial question of law arises for'consideration. Therefore, he has filed a memo.indicating the substantial question of law. The same|reads as under: | Whether the Tribunal was correct [n retirement is eligible for exemption.under Section 10(12) of the Act? 5. In the instant case, The assessee retired on | 1-4-2002. As on that date, the amount accumulated in.the Provident Fund was Rs.3/7,93,888/-. He did not! withdraw the same. He sought to withdraw it on |11-4-7011. Tne accumulated balance as on tnat date.was Rs.82,00,783/- which constituted the interest on)tne|amountOT Rs.37,93,588/-_asON)1-4-2018onwards. 6. By relying on the provisions of Section 10(12)of the Act, the Tribunal held that so far as to the extent|of the amount as on the date of retirement is_concerned, the assessee is eligible for exemption.|Therefore, law Nas been rightly applied by the Tribunal.Hence, we do not find the same constitutes anysubstantial question of law. What is relied by the|Assessing Officer is only the amount as was available|on tne date of retirement as on 1-4-2002. It Is tne)amount on that date that was held to be eligible for|exemptionandnottneaccumulatedamount.Therefore, no substantial question of law requires to bedetermined by this Court. | �-29-��5,-�.>>-.4��D-02;�7-E107�16�:-805��0/� 70/:0//-7��� ��+$�����������+$������������������������� =E=�