TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (9) TMI 349
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessee challenged the addition of Rs. 34,23,565/- on account of capital gains. The assessing officer noted that the assessee is an individual deriving income from capital gains and income from other sources during the year. As per computation of income filed by the assessee for the A.Y. 2013-14 under appeal, the assessee has claimed an exemption under section 54 of the I.T. Act amounting to Rs. 51,45,226/- on account of investments made out of total long term capital gains earned on sale of Flat for Rs. 75.00 Lacs at 673, Ground Floor, Pocket- E, Mayur Vihar, Phase-II, New Delhi. The assessee has invested entire long term capital gains so earned in three separate Flats in Earth Iconic Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd namely - l. EST2-490 for Rs. 14,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing officer made calculation of the capital gain accordingly and computed the taxable long term capital gains at Rs. 34,23,565/- and made the addition accordingly. 4. This addition was challenged before the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee reiterated the submissions made before the assessing officer. The assessee claimed that the provisions of Section 139(1) includes provisions of Section 139(4) and considering this the date of furnishing the return comes to 31.03.2015 and assessee has paid all the amount before 31.03.2015. The assessee relied upon the Judgment in the case of Nandlal Sharma vs. ITO as reported in 61 Taxmann 271 in which several decisions including the Judgment of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court have been referred to in the cas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... residential house for purchase of another residential property within extended period of limitation of filing of return under section 139, his claim for deduction under section 54F was to be allowed." 6.1. Learned Counsel for the Assessee further submitted that Ld. CIT(A) has erred in evaluating effect of "a residential house with one residential house as given Amendment in Finance Act, 2014 read with Memorandum explaining the budget. The Amendment which was prospective, one can be used to restrict the benefit flowing to the assessee by preponing it. He has also referred to Board Circular in this regard. 7. On the other hand, Ld. D.R. relied upon the Orders of the authorities below and submitted that authorities below have rightly consid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 under sub-section (1) to file the return. Therefore, such provision was not an independent provision, but relates to the time contemplated under subsection (1) of section 139. Therefore, sub-section (4) had to be read along with subsection (1). Therefore, the due date for furnishing the return of income according to section 139(1) of the Act was subject to the extended period provided under sub-section (4) of section 139 of the Act....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 8.2. However, as regards the claim of assessee claiming exemption under section 54 in respect of investment made by assessee-company in Flat K-1003, I am of the view that such claim is not allowable in favour of assessee. Even according to the arguments of Learned Counsel for the Assessee, amendment in the Section is prospective in nature, therefore, it would not be allowed beneficial to the assessee. The language of Section 54 of the Income Tax Act is very clear that benefit under this provision could be extended in respect of investments made in one residential house in India. The authorities below, therefore, rightly denied the claim of exemption under section 54 in respect of....