TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (6) TMI 778
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the agricultural land sold to M.s Sarv Sanjhi Construction (P) Ltd. B-47, Connaught Place, New Delhi, assessed by the AO, under the head 'Income from other sources' without any justification for the same. Without prejudice to the said contention, the sale should have been assessed under the head 'Agricultural income' after allowing the expenditure incurred in cultivating the said crops. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the levy of interest u/s 234B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 which is unjustified and illegal. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or modify any of the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing of the appeal." 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and during the relevant financial year, he has sold agricultural land and a residential house located at Karnal. He has declared the sale consideration of Rs. 2.16 crores for the agricultural land and Rs. 8.25 lacs for residential house. The return of income for the assessment year 2007-08 was filed on 31.7.2007. The assessment u/s 143(3) was finalized on 24.12.2009. 3. The ground nos.1 & 5 are general in nature and do not require any adju....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aiming the exemption u/s 54F, the assessee was required to deposit the amount of capital gain either in the capital gain account scheme or invest in the new house before the due date of filing of return of income within the period prescribed under section 139. In this case, the due date by which the return could be filed u/s 139(4) was 31.3.2009 while the assessee has invested whole of the amount by 23.04.2008. Therefore, the assessee is entitled for the benefit of claim of exemption u/s 54F of Income-tax Act, for which he relied on the following decisions :- (i) Fatima Bai vs. ITO (2009) 32 DTR (Kar.) 243; and (ii) CIT vs. Rajesh Kumar Jalan, 286 ITR 274 (Gau.) He also relied on the decision of ITAT in the case of P.R. Kulkarni & Sons (HUF) vs. ACIT (2011) 49 DTR (Bang.)(Tri.) 442 and Abdul Bashar Siddiqui vs. ITO, ITA No.3628/Del/2009 (Delhi Tribunal). The intention of the assessee was always to get the benefit of capital gains account scheme and the mistake was committed by Branch Manager. Further he submitted that the possession of the new asset purchased was taken within two years from the date of sale of asset, therefore, the other condition for reinvestment of two years p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to its plain meaning and no words shall be added, altered or modified unless it is plainly necessary to do so to prevent a provision from being unintelligible, absurd, unreasonable, unworkable or totally irreconcilable with the rest of the same." In view of the above, it is respectfully submitted that in order to make the provisions of section 54F sensible, workable and rational, a harmonious reading of both the limbs of sub-section (4) is necessary. That is 'section 139' that appear in the first limb of the section 54F(4) should read in context of due date as per section 139(1) mentioned in the second limb. In other words, section 139 mentioned in the first limb of section 54F(4) would impliedly mean only the return of income filed in the normal course u/s 139(1) in order to be consonant with the time limit provided in the second limb for depositing the net sale consideration before the date u/s 139(1). Learned DR finally submitted that without prejudice to the above, it is respectfully submitted that frequent changes in stand/explanations offered by assessee and his contumacious behavior on this issue as well as other issues involved in this assessment do not entitle him for any....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ulted in not filing the return under s. 139(4). But, however, utilised the capital gains for purchase of property before the extended due date under s. 139(4). The contention of the Revenue that the deposit in the scheme should have been made before the initial due date and not the extended due date is an untenable contention.-CIT vs. Rajesh Kumar Jalan (2006) 206 CTR (Gau) 361 :(2006) 286 ITR 274 (Gau) concurred with." In the assessee's case, the amount has been invested prior to the due date by which the return could be filed u/s 139 of the Act. A similar view has also been held in the case of CIT vs. Rajesh Kumar Jalan, cited supra, by the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held as under :- "Interpretation of statutes-Beneficial provision-Purposive construction-In construing beneficial enactment, the view that advances the object of the enactment and serves its purpose must be preferred to the one which obstructs the object and paralyses the purpose of the beneficial enactment-Kunal Singh vs. Union of India (2003) 4 SCC 524 applied. Capital gains-Exemption under s. 54 - Time-limit for making deposit under the scheme - Only s. 139 is mentione....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e crops over it and part of amount received for the same. It is also claimed that the payments were as per agreement dated 20.6.2006. It is claimed that there was a dera, pucca drains, brick flooring for approach road, barbed wire fencing all around the land, crops. For the crops of vegetables and fruits, the assessee has received Rs. 13,90,000/-. He also claimed that the amount of Rs. 18,80,000/- was also received for settlement of labourers and he pleaded that it should not be assessed as income from other sources. The details submitted are as under :- Sl.Nos. ITEMS Amount of Compensation 01. Dera (2 rooms 15x12' each) Hand Pump & Boundary wall measuring 30x40 Sq.Yards = 120 Sq.Yards =1 140 yard in length and 2 yard high 7,00,000.00 02. Pucca Drains 1,00,000.00 03. Brick Flooring for approach Road 65 yards 1,70,000.00 04. Barbed wire fencing all around the land 4.50 Acres 3,00,000.00 05. Crops (i) Potato (ii) Shimla Mirch (iii) Banana (iv) Papaya (v) Sonjna Fali (vi) Bans 3,00,000.00 3,00,000.00 1,50,000.00 4,00,000.00 40,000.00 2,00,000.00 06. Settlement of Labours (20 labours from Bihar, Jharkhand & M.P. was residing on the land since 6 years back....