TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (11) TMI 606
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ome Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in applying the provisions of Section 54(F) (4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? (b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the Assessing Officer has rightly computed the deduction u/s. 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961, restricting the investment in the new asset at Rs. 35,00,000/and thus restricting the exemption u/s. 54F of the Act proportionately to the amount invested ?" 3. The Appeal has since been decided. Both Question Nos.1 and 2 have been answered in the affirmative i.e. in favour of the respondent revenue and against the appellant assessee. 4. In this Petition it is the petitioner's case that for the assessment year 199697 the petitioner has filed return of income declaring total income of Rs. 44,84,820/. The Assessing Officer levied interest as under : Under Section 234A Rs. 53,580/ Under Section 234B Rs. 9,73,370/ Under Section 234C Rs. 700/ In the return filed, the petitioner had claimed exemption from capital gains under Section 54F in respect of sale of the land for a consideration of Rs. 85,33,250/. Despite agreeing to purchase a flat for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mmissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal. Being aggrieved the appellant filed Income Tax Appeal which we have decided on 18th August, 2016. In view of dismissal of the appeal, the denial of exemption under Section 54F stands confirmed. 8. Mr. Chatterjee, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was entitled to waiver or reduction of interest in terms of the order [F.No.400/234/95IT( B)] dated 23.5.1996 issued under Section 119(2)(a) of the Act by the CBDT. 9. Mr. Chatterjee, in particular placed reliance upon clause 2(d) of the order [F.No.400/234/95IT( B)] dated 23.5.1996 of the CBDT. For ease of reference the relevant extract of the said circular is produced below : "( 2) (a) .... ..... .... (b) .... ..... .... (c) .... ..... .... (d) Where any income which was not chargeable to income tax on the basis of any order passed in the case of an assessee by the High Court within whose jurisdiction he is assessable to income and as a result he did not pay income tax in relation to such income in any previous year and subsequently, in consequence of any retrospective amendment of law or as the case may be, the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 12. According to Mr. Chatterjee, the petitioner had received possession of the premises which had been purchased from out of the sale proceeds of the land. The sale of capital asset took place on 29th April 1995 and the agreement of purchasing the flat was dated 16th July, 1996 and amount of Rs. 35,00,000/was paid towards purchase of the flat and the balance of Rs. 34,60,000/was to be paid and the return of income was filed on 4th November, 1996 under Section 139 of the Act. Section 54F provides that the amount not utilized wholly or partly for the purchase towards residential accommodation shall be deposited by him under Section 139(1) in a specified bank account. In the facts of the present case Rs. 34,60,000/was not so deposited nor was it paid towards purchase price. 13. In support of his contentions Mr. Chatterjee relied upon the meaning of the words "as the case may be " in P.Ramanatha Aiyar's Advanced Law Lexicon and The Major Law Lexicon and submitted that the definitions would encompass his client's case and that the benefit of reduction and/or waiver may be given to the Petitioner. Mr. Chatterjee also relied upon the decision of Prime Securities Ltd....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cation dated 30th January, 1997. Therefore the scope of examination before us is the only correct and true interpretation of the above order in the facts of this case. 17. Having considered the facts, hearing counsel at length and having considered the decisions cited, we find that Mr. Malhotra is right. Mr. Chatterjee's contention is that the Petitioner received possession and therefore entire price was "deemed to be appropriated" towards purchase price of the residential flat does not commend itself to us as already negatived in our order dated 18th August, 2016 in the petitioner's appeal. Furthermore, the phrase "as the case may be" does not carry the Petitioner's case any further. 18. In our opinion, in the facts of the present case the petitioner is not entitled to benefit of order [F.No.400/234/95IT( B)] dated 23.5.1996 and we are unable to appreciate Mr. Chatterjee's contention that the expression "as the case may be" used in paragraph 2(d) of the order issued by the CBDT can come to the petitioner's rescue. This on the basis of his submission that it would cover any other case. The phrase "or as the case may be" has been used in the order dated 23rd ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Tax while considering the application dated 7th August, 2002 for waiver or reduction of tax has observed that discretion must be exercised strictly within the parameters laid down in the order. The parameters are binding upon the authorities and the petitioner was not entitled to such benefit, in case it does not fall within it. 20. Reliance by Mr. Chatterjee upon the decision of this Court in Prime Services Ltd. (supra) is of no assistance in the present case as it does not deal with relief as claimed before us on the basis of CBDT the order dated 23rd May, 1996. Similarly, the decision of Kerala High Court in CIT vs. Jimichan M.Varicatt (supra) was a decision wherein the benefit was not granted to the assessee under the order of the CBDT dated 23rd May, 1996. In fact, the Division Bench after upholding the order of the Single Judge on its interpretation of the order dated 23rd May, 1996 yet granted partial relief to the petitioner by waiving interest in excess of Rs. 1 lakh under Sections 234B and 234C of the Act de hors the interpretation of the order dated 23rd December, 1996. 21. Mr. Chatterjee had relied upon the judgment of Gujarat High Court in the matter of Smt. Bh....