TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (11) TMI 1062
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 2,87,20,000/- to Rs. 1,87,86,275/-. The assessee had sold 2 lakhs shares of M/s Alps Ltd. on 17.3.2008 @ Rs. 153/- per share for an aggregate consideration of Rs. 3,06,00,000/-. However, after deduction of cost of acquisition of Rs. 20,00,000/-, long term capital gain was computed at Rs. 2,86,00,000/-, which was claimed to be eligible for deduction u/s 54F of the Act in the following manner. Sl.No. Particulars Amount (Rs.) 1. Amount invested on 29.9.2008 in purchase of residential plot no.282, Sector 1, IMT Manewar 86,20,000/- 2. Amount deposited on 29.9.2008 in Capital Gain account with SBI, Sector 15, Gurgaon 2,01,00,000/- Total 2,86,20,000/- The A.O. has not accepted the claim of investment in purchase of residential plot at Rs. 86,20,000/- and, computed the amount eligible for deduction u/s 54F of the Act at Rs. 1,87,86,275/- in the following manner. Long term capital gain on sale of shares: Sale proceed (as disclosed) Rs.3,06,00,000/- Less: Cost of acquisition as claimed Rs. 20,00,000/- Capital Gain Rs.2,86,00,000/- Less: Deduction u/s 54F of the Act against deposit of Rs. 2.01 cr. In capital gain a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2,00,000 25.10.2008 To Seema Yadav 9,00,000 27.10.2008 To Cash 50,000 To Veena Yadav 5,00,000 To Veena Yadav 95,000 To Gift Ramkaur 2,00,000 To Cash 9,90,000 86,61,438 By Residential Plot in Manesar 86,20,000 f) That assessee's brother Mr. Ram Niwas Yadav, seems to have not shown capital gain on sale of the subject plot in his return of income of A. Y.2009-20 1 0, relevant to financial year 2008-2009. 3. On appeal the First Appellate Authority granted relief. 4. Aggrieved the Revenue is in appeal before us on the following grounds. "1. On the facts and in circumstances of the case, Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the additions made by the AO amounting to Rs. 98,13,725/- on account of rejection of claim of exemption u/s 54F of the Act. 2. On the facts and in circumstances of the case, Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the additions made by the AO on account of non-deduction of TDS on an amount of Rs. 3,66,0....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....his case the assessee has not paid any amount and hence there is no utilization within the stipulated period under the Act. hi) On the submission of the assessee that the due date of furnishing the return of income u/s 139, would include the due date specified under S.139(4), by relying on various case laws, the Ld.Sr.D.R. submitted that, the date of filing of the return by the assessee is relevant. He submitted that once the return has been filed, the claim of deductions gets finalized. He pointed out that the assessee has not filed a revised return of income before the time allowed u/s 139(4) and hence the issue does not arise. 6. On the other hand, the Ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that: (i) the AO's finding that the money raised for investments in the plot of land, is not relatable to the proceeds arising out of the sale of the asset and hence deduction cannot be granted, is against the propositions of law laid down by various High Courts. The Courts have held that the requirement of law is that the assessee should purchase a residential house within the period and source of funds is quite irrelevant. 6.1. He relied on the following case law. 107 Taxman 591 (Ke....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... dishonoured. After issuing the cheque, the assessee ensured that the amount required for honouring the cheque, is transferred to his bank account. The sources of funds is not in dispute. 9.1. In our view the claim of deduction u/s 54F cannot be denied for the sole reason that the assessee did not have sufficient balance in his bank account as on the date of issue of cheque for purchase of a plot of land for the reason that the cheque was honoured as and when it was presented; this is a beneficial provision and has to be liberally construed; factually it cannot be stated that the assessee has not invested the said amount in the purchase of a plot, before the filing of the return of income on 30.9.2008. The Tribunals and Courts have in a number of decisions held that, there is no requirement in law, that the same funds, which were obtained on the sale of a asset, should be utilized for the purchase of a plot. 9.2. The moment a cheque has been issued by a person, in pursuance of a contract of purchase, in our view, it is utilization of funds, as there is a legal commitment by the assessee. When the transaction materialized it relates back to the date of agreement and the date o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s has been dishonoured on presentation and payment cannot, therefore, be said to have been defeated by the happening of the condition subsequent, namely, dishonour by non payment and that being so there can be no question, therefore, that the assessee did not receive payment by the receipt of the cheques. The position, therefore, is that in one view of the matter there was, in the circumstances of this case, an implied agreement under which the cheques were accepted unconditionally as payment and on another view, even if the cheques were taken conditionally, the cheques not having been dishonoured but having been cashed, the payment related back to the dates of the receipt of the cheques and in law the dates of payments were the dates of the delivery of the cheques." 9.5. Applying the propositions laid down in the above case laws to the facts of the case on hand we have to uphold the contentions of the assessee. Regarding other grounds cited by the A.O. for rejecting the claim, we uphold the finding of the Ld.CIT(A) as no infirmity could be pointed out by the Ld.D.R. in the order of the Ld.CIT(A). 9.6. Thus we uphold the finding of the First Appellate Authority and dismiss gr....