* HON BLE SRI JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN AND HON BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.RAJANI + I.T.T.A. No.519 of 2017 % 21-8-2017 # Prl. Commissioner of Income-tax-6, Hyderabad Appellant Vs. $ M/s. B.Surendra Chowdary, Prop. Sri Sai Ganesh Productions, Plot No.16B, Road No.7, Film Nagar, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad-500 039 Respondent ! Counsel for Appellant: Ms. M.Kiranmayee, Senior Standing Counsel Counsel for Respondent:--- < Gist: > Head Note: ? Cases referred: Nil. 2 VRS, J. & TR, J. itta_519_2017 HON BLE SRI JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN AND HON BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.RAJANI I.T.T.A. No.519 of 2017 Judgment: (per V.Ramasubramanian, J.) Revenue has come up with above appeal under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961, raising following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether on facts and in circumstances of case, order of Tribunal is not perverse in holding that assessee is entitled for exemption u/S.54F of Act? and (ii) Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case, Tribunal is correct in allowing deduction u/S.54F of Act for property alleged to have been purchased in name of assessee s wife instead of purchasing same in his name as provided under provisions of Sec.54F of Act? 2. Heard Ms. M.Kiranmayee, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Department. 3. assessee filed return of income for Assessment Year 2007-08 declaring total income of Rs.14,12,860/-. In course of survey operations, it was found that assessee sold property for sale consideration of Rs.1,93,33,000/-, but failed to disclose same as income from capital gains. Therefore, notice was issued under Section 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961 and Assessing Officer disallowed claim under Section 54F. It was on ground that investment made 3 VRS, J. & TR, J. itta_519_2017 by assessee was in name of his wife and not in his name. 4. However, Commissioner (Appeals) allowed appeal filed by assessee and said order was also confirmed by Tribunal. Aggrieved by concurrent orders passed by Commissioner (Appeals) and Tribunal, Revenue has come up with above appeal. 5. It is seen from orders of Commissioner (Appeals) and Tribunal that both of them proceeded on basis of interpretation given by various Courts, including members of family of assessee, within definition of expression assessee . Commissioner (Appeals) as well as Tribunal held that investment made by assessee was qualified for benefit of Section 54F. 6. Revenue attempted to raise one more objection, namely, that construction of residential property was not completed. But Tribunal recorded finding of fact in paragraph-11.1 to effect that assessee s representative produced planning permission from Corporation, water connection permission, property assessment receipt and electricity bill. Tribunal also recorded factual finding that learned departmental representative verified details and confirmed same. We do not think that questions of law raised arise for consideration. Hence, 4 VRS, J. & TR, J. itta_519_2017 appeal is dismissed. miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed. No costs. ___________________________ V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J. _____________ T.RAJANI, J. 21st August, 2017. Ak 5 VRS, J. & TR, J. itta_519_2017 HON BLE SRI JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN AND HON BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.RAJANI I.T.T.A. No.519 of 2017 (per VRS, J.) 21st August, 2017. (Ak) Prl. Commissioner of Income-tax-6, Hyderabad v. B. Surendra Chowdary