TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (6) TMI 309
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....43(3) r/w s. 147 of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). In appeal, the learned CIT(A) granted certain reliefs to the assessee. So, both the parties are in appeal against the same appellate order. 3. Ground No. 1 of assessee's appeal and ground Nos. (i) and (ia) of the Department's appeal relate to an addition on account of denial of exemption under s. 54F. 4. The appellant is employed in the Public Health Engineering Department (PHED). He had sold a plot at Jaipur on 4th Jan., 1995, relevant to asst. yr. 1995-96 for a total consideration of Rs. 5 lakhs. A copy of the agreement is placed at pp. 13 to 19 of the paper book. The assessee entered into an agreement to purchase a residential house situated at Vivek Vihar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and allowed the claim for exemption under s. 54F to the extent of Rs. 2 lakhs only being the amount invested by the assessee to purchase the flat at Jaipur on 16th April, 1995, i.e., before filing of the return under s. 139. The learned CIT(A) accepted the claim in respect of the flat which was ultimately not purchased, but rejected the claim in respect of the flat wherein actual investment was finally made by the assessee. Both the parties are aggrieved and have filed respective appeals. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and have perused the evidence on record. 8. The learned Authorised Representative has submitted that s. 54F was introduced by the Finance Act, 1982, which permitted reinvestment of the proceeds received on trans....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Thus the assessee invested the amount within the stipulated time. The only fault committed by the assessee in this case seems to be that the assessee failed to deposit the unutilised amount meant for reinvestment in the capital gain account scheme before filing of the return under s. 139 of the Act. The learned Authorised Representative has relied on the following various decisions at p. 4 of the paper book: 1. Bajaj Tempo Ltd. vs. CIT (1992) 104 CTR (SC) 116 : (1992) 196 ITR 188 (SC) wherein it has held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that a provision in taxing statute granting incentives for promoting growth and development should be construed liberally. 2. CIT vs. Gwalior Rayon Silk Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (1992) 104 CTR ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....95 for Rs. 5 lakhs, in view of the aforesaid decisions, this amount of Rs. 4,01,000 invested by the assessee in the purchase of flat is to be held exempt under s. 54F. The intention of the assessee from the very beginning was to purchase a flat. When due to certain unavoidable circumstances, the contract did not materialise, it cannot be said that there was any hanky panky on the part of the assessee to avoid payment of tax. The assessee ultimately purchased a flat within two years from the sale of plot. The default committed by the assessee was a technical default that the assessee did not deposit the amount meant for reinvestment in the capital gain account scheme before filing return under s. 139 of the Act. Keeping in view the totality ....