TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (4) TMI 392
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oner of Income-tax (Appeals), being contrary to the provisions of law and facts, the assessee kindly be held entitled to the deduction so claimed and the addition made in the long-term capital gain by Rs. 9,99,050 be deleted in full. 2. Rs. 3,80,000 : The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) further erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in confirming the addition made on account of bank deposits by the Assessing Officer of Rs. 3,80,000 under section 68 of the Act. The addition so made and confirmed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), is contrary to the provisions of law and facts hence, kindly be deleted in full. 3. The learned Assessing Officer further erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in charging interest under section 234B and section 234D of the Act and as also in withdrawing of interest under section 244A of the Act. The appellant totally denies its liability of charging and withdrawal of any such interest. The interest so charged/withdrawn, being contrary to the provisions of law and facts, kindly be deleted in full. 4. The appellant prays your honour indulgences to add, amend or alter of or any of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ame manner, which was not done in this case. The submission of the assessee that she had no knowledge of the tax laws and the sale consideration was already kept in a bank account was rejected by the Assessing Officer. Finally, the claim of deduction made under section 54F was disallowed. Before the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) detailed submissions were filed, which were forwarded to the Assessing Officer calling for his remand report. The Assessing Officer submitted his remand report and the assessee filed rejoinder thereon. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that the assessee sold the property on February 10, 2010 in four parts for Rs. 13 lakhs, valued at Rs. 16,14,400 by the Registering Authority and the entire amount of sale consideration was invested in the purchase of new property at Rs. 23 lakhs on July 28, 2010 before the due date of the filing of return, i.e., July 31, 2010, however, the amount was not deposited in the scheme notified by the Government and the investment was not made in the manner provided under section 54F(4) and that the assessee should have filed a revised return under section 139(5). Finally, the learned Commissioner ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Fathima Bai v. ITO [2009] 32 DTR 243 (Karn) (DPB 22-26) ; 6. CIT v. Ms. Jagriti Aggarwal [2011] 339 ITR 610 (P&H) ; [2011] 245 CTR 629 (DPB 27-31) ; 7. Rakesh Nain Trivedi v. CIT [2015] 152 ITD 869 (Amritsar-Trib) ; 8. N. Ram Kumar v. Asst. CIT [2012] 150 TTJ (Hyd) 656 (DPB 32- 37); and 9. ITO v. Gope M. Rochlani [2013] 158 TTJ (Mumbai) 120. 6. As regards the further objection that the assessee should have filed a revised return of income under section 139(5), it was submitted that firstly this was not the case made out by the Assessing Officer originally in the assessment order but was an objection raised only during the course of the remand proceedings by the successor Assessing Officer which, was not permissible and also submitted that since the appellant was contending that there was no capital gain as it had already intended and also rather acted accordingly by making investment in the new residential house, hence there was no capital gain tax liability in her hand and since there was no omission on wrong statement made in the originally filed return of income hence, she was not required to file a revised return. Otherwise also this tec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... more amount, i.e., Rs. 23,00,000 as against the net consideration of Rs. 13,00,000 only in the purchase of plot on July 28, 2010 itself. In other words, even before the due date prescribed under section 139(1) being July 31, 2010 the investment of larger amount than the net consideration was made. There apart, construction of the house thereon was also completed within the prescribed time limit of three years. These facts were not denied even during the course of hearing. The authorities cited by the learned counsel for the assessee related to the situation where the assessee made the investment within the due date prescribed under section 139(4) and it was held that section 54 or section 54F for that reason uses the word "section 139", which meant not only section 139(1) but also section 139(4). Therefore, a larger time-limit was available to the assessee. The following decisions are relied upon : 1. Jagan Nath Singh Lodha v. ITO [2004] 85 TTJ (Jodhpur) 173 (DPB 8-13), wherein it was held that : "Intention of the assessee from the very beginning being to purchase residential house and he having done so within two years of sale of plot, he was entitled to exempti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....refore, of the considered opinion that the appellant was fully entitled to the deduction as claimed under section 54F, there was no justifiable reason to deny the same by the authorities below. The order of the authorities below on this issue is, therefore, reversed and this ground of the assessee is allowed. 10. The facts of the second grounds of appeal are that as per AIR information, it was noticed that the assessee made substantial cash deposits in the bank account No. 11662010001750 in Oriental Bank of Commerce, Jainvi Colony, Bikaner being operated jointly by the appellant with her husband Shri Ramesh Chand Yadav, the detail of which are reproduced at page 2 of the assessment order. As per the Assessing Officer, the assessee could explain the deposits mentioned at S. Nos. 3, 4 and 6 however, there was no satisfactory explanation with respect to deposit at S. Nos. 1, 2 and 5 totalling to Rs. 3,80,000 (Rs. 1,00,000 at S. No. 1, Rs. 30,000 at S. No. 2 and Rs. 2,50,000 at S. No. 5). When asked the assessee submitted that such amount belonged to her husband who deposited the same. Her relation with the husband was strenuous since last several months because of the family disput....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the assessee which was self serving inasmuch as he could have been fastened the tax liability if he failed to explain the source of such deposits. Moreover the facts are not denied that the relationship of the assessee-lady with her husband were strenuous and they were residing separately, therefore, the veracity of the statement of the husband was highly doubtful. The Assessing Officer merely proceeded on a mere suspicion without bringing any cogent evidence to discharge the burden lay upon him under section 69/69B even assuming the Assessing Officer made out his case under those provisions. The authorised representative also tried to explain that there were sufficient withdrawals available made from the same very bank account in the preceding dates which was available to be deposited on the later dates and therefore, prayed that the entire addition be deleted. 14. The learned Departmental representative, on the other hand, relied upon the orders of the authorities below and also stated that the assessee did not avail the opportunity of cross-examination of the husband though, provided. In the rejoined the learned authorised representative submitted that simply from that fact....