Kasi Viswanathan Ramanathan v. ITO (2020) 80 ITR 461 ( Chennai )(Trib)

S.54F : Capital gains- Investment in a residential house – Failure to deposit unutilised portion of consideration in capital gains scheme — Procedural requirement — Benefit cannot be denied [ S.45 , 54(2)]

Tribunal held that mere non-compliance with a procedural requirement under section 54(2) itself could not stand in way of the assessee getting benefit under section 54 , if, otherwise, he was in a position to satisfy that the mandatory requirement under section 54(1) was fully complied with within the time-limit prescribed therein. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was to allow the total investments made by the assessee under section 54F after satisfying whether the investment was utilised for the construction of the house within the time-limit specified under section 54F .( AY.2012-13)