2018 (6) TMI 1604

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....exemption u/s 54F even when the assessee has not deposited the safe consideration amount in the capital gains bank account whereas the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Humanyu Suleman Merchant ITA 545/M/2002 has held that the un-utilized amounts would be subject to the charge of capital gain tax, unless they are deposited in specified bank account as notified in terms of Section 54F(4) of the Act? 3. Whether on facts and circumstance of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding the indexation year of cost of acquisition to be 1981-82 without appreciating that the house property at Chennai was inherited by the assesses on 10.06.2001 i.e. only after her mother's expiry? 3. We begin with the 1st ground of appeal. Briefly stated the facts are that the assessee had inherited house property in Chennai (1/4th share) from her mother which was sold on 31.01.2011 for Rs. 7,57,65,350/-. However, mother held the property from a date prior to 01.04.1981. The assessee had taken the Fair Market Value (FMV) of the property as on 01.04.1981 at Rs. 9,70,000/- (1/4th share at Rs. 2,42,500/-) based on the order of the Assistant Commissioner, Urban Land Tax, Egmore Madras. The assess....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....elevant time that the capital gains arising out of transfer of capital asset should be invested in a residential house situated in India. The language of section 54F of the Act before its amendment was that the assessee should invest capital gains in a residential house. It was only after the amendment to section 54F of the Act by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2014, which came into force with effect from April 1, 2015 that the assesses should invest the sale proceeds arising out of sale of capital asset in a residential house situated in India within the stipulated period. When section 54F was clear and unambiguous, there was no scope for importing into the statute words which were not there. Moreover, when the language of a taxing provision was ambiguous or capable of more meanings than one, then the court had to adopt the interpretation which favoured the assessee. The benefit of section 54F before its amendment could be extended to a residential house purchased outside India and hence the claim of exemption was to be allowed." As in the instant case, as the assessee has invested capital gains in purchase of residential house prior to amendment to section 54F of the Act by the Financ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ct that the appellant had obtained possession of the new flat on 27.01.1997. However, the order of the AO dated 13.03.2001 was not disturbed. On further appeal, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the assessee. On appeal filed by the assessee, the Hon'ble High Court held that the Tribunal was right in holding that the AO had rightly computed the deduction u/s 54F, restricting the investment in new asset at Rs. 35 lakhs and thus, restricting the exemption u/s 54F proportionately to the amount invested. The Ld. counsel submits that the assessee had filed her original return of income on 20.06.2011 and disclosed a LTCG on sale of residential house property at Chennai therein. Thereafter, she filed a revised return of income on 24.07.2012 enclosing therein a revised computation of total income and revised computation of LTCG on sale of residential house property at Chennai in which exemption u/s 54 amounting to Rs. 3,52,69,829/- was claimed in respect of house purchased in Australia. It is stated that the assessee had remitted an amount of Rs. 9 lakhs to Australia on 04.03.2011 and further remitted Rs. 2,90,00,000/- on 11.08.2011 and also remitted Rs. 2 crore on 04.06.2012 from her S....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ate of filing the return of income. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the assessee had purchased the new residential property on January 02, 2007 and the due date according to section 139(4) was March 31st, 2007 and thus, the assessee had complied with the provisions of section 54 of the Act. This order was confirmed by the Tribunal. On appeal by the revenue, the Hon'ble High Court held, dismissing the appeal, that the sale of the asset had taken place on January 13, 2006, falling in the previous year 2006-07, the return could be filed before the end of the relevant assessment year 2007-08 i.e. March 31, 2007. Thus, sub-section (4) of section 139 provides the extended period of limitation as an exception to sub-section (1) of section 139 of the Act. Sub-section (4) was in relation to the time allowed to an assessee u/s sub-section (1) to file the return. Therefore, such provision was not an independent provision, but relates to the time contemplated under sub-section (1) of section 139. Therefore, sub-section (4) had to be read along with sub-section (1). Therefore, the due date for furnishing the return of income according to section 139(1) of the Act was subject to the extend....