आयकर अपीलीय न्यायाधिकरण में , हैदराबाद ‘ए’ बेंच , हैदराबाद IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ A ‘ Bench, Hyderabad , , श्रीरवीशसूद माननीयन्याययकसदस्यएवंश्रीमिुसूदन सावडिया माननीयलेखासदस्य SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.366/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2019-20)

The Deputy Commissioner Vs. Syama Reddy Mali Reddy, of Income Tax, R/o. Hyderabad.

(International Taxation)-1, PAN : AEYPM9330D Hyderabad.

(अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ : Shri K.C. Devdas, C.A.

Assessee Represented by राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ : Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR Department Represented by सुिवाई समाप्त होिे की ततति/ : 08.07.2025 Date of Conclusion of Hearing घोर्णध की तधरीख/ : 03.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement

O R D E R

प्रनत रवीश सूद, जे.एम./PER RAVISH SOOD, J.M.

The present appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) – 10, Hyderabad, dated 19.12.2024, which in turn arises from the order passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “Act”), dated 29.02.2024 for A.Y. 2019-20.

2. On the matter having been set aside by the Tribunal vide its order passed in ITA No. 325/Hyd/2022 dated 20.03.2023, the Revenue has assailed the impugned order passed by the CIT(Appeals), which in turn arises from the order passed by the A.O under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(3) of the Act, dated 29.02.2024 on the following grounds of appeal before us:

“1. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred both in law and on facts of the case in granting exemption u/s.54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, whether the CIT(Appeals) is justified in granting exemption u/s.54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without appreciating the fact that the new residential property was purchased and got registered on 07.12.2021 i.e beyond the period of 2 years as stipulated u/s.54F of the Act.

3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, whether the CIT(Appeals) is justified in granting exemption u/s.54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 holding that the entire sale consideration received on sale of plots was reinvested in a residential property within the stipulated time even though the legal formalities of getting the property in assessee's name did not take place within the time stipulated u/s.54F of the Act, or the extension provided by the Taxation & Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of certain provisions) Act, 2020.

4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, whether the CIT(Appeals) is justified in granting exemption u/s.54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without appreciating that the purchase of property is not complete without actual transfer of ownership by registration as laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Sharma Vs. Kotak Mahendra Bank Ltd in SLP(C) No.330/2017

5. Any other ground of appeal that may be raised with the prior approval of the Hon'ble ITAT during the appellate proceedings.”

3. Succinctly stated, the assessee, who is a Non-Resident Individual (NRI), had filed her Return of Income for A.Y. 2019-20 on 22.07.2019, declaring an income of Rs. 5,25,81,858/-. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment under Section 143(2) of the Act.

4. The A.O. vide his original order of assessment passed under Section 143(3) r.w Section 144C(3) of the Act, dated 30.11.2021, redetermined the “Long-Term Capital Gains” (“LTCG") disclosed by the assessee on sale of 25 plots situated at Medipally, Uppal, Hyderabad, and 4 plots at Bhongir District, at Rs. 4,01,68,370/-, by an amount of Rs. 7,58,13,772/-. Apart from that, the A.O. declined the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 54 of the Act on two grounds, viz. (i) the assessee had not purchased the new residential house within two years from the date of transfer of the or