Just a moment...

Report
ReportReport
Welcome to TaxTMI

We're migrating from taxmanagementindia.com to taxtmi.com and wish to make this transition convenient for you. We welcome your feedback and suggestions. Please report any errors you encounter so we can address them promptly.

Bars
Logo TaxTMI
>
×

By creating an account you can:

Report an Error
Type of Error :
Please tell us about the error :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home /

2019 (12) TMI 1204

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....med deduction u/s 54F of the Act to the tune of Rs. 1.50 crores. 4. The AO noticed that the assessee has invested a sum of Rs. 50 lakhs in capital gains bond scheme eligible for deduction u/s 54EC of the Act. He further noticed that the assessee has not deposited the unutilised sale consideration into capital gain accounts scheme as required u/s 54F(4) of the Act before the due date prescribed u/s 139(1) of the Act for filing return of income. The AO noticed that the assessee has made deposit in capital gain scheme as per sec. 54F(4) of the Act only on 26/8/2013, i.e., subsequent to the due date prescribed u/s 139(1) of the Act for filing return of income. The AO noticed that the assessee has withdrawn money from capital gain account scheme and purchased a vacant plot at Devanahalli for a consideration of Rs. 1.29 crores during the May 2014. 5. Since the assessee had transferred the property on 13/8/2012, the AO observed that, as per sec. 54F of the Act, the assessee should have constructed a residential house on or before 31/8/2015. The AO deputed his Inspector to physically inspect the status of construction. The Inspector, vide his report dated 10/3/2016, reported that only fo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of FATIMA BAI. It is claimed that the mere delay in deposit of the amount in the capital gains account scheme will not disentitle the appellant to exemption claimed as the appellant has time till the due date u/s. 139(4) of the Act. I have examined the issue further. 14. The section 54(2) is as under: (2) The amount of the capital gain which is not appropriated by the assessee towards the purchase of the new asset made within one year before the date on which the transfer of the original asset took place, or which is not utilised by him for the purchase or construction of the new asset before the date of furnishing the return of income under section 139, shall be deposited by him before furnishing such return [such deposit being made in any case not later than the due date applicable in the case of the assessee for furnishing the return of income under sub-section (1) of section .21 in an account in any such hank or institution as may be specified in, and utilised in accordance with, any scheme-R) which the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, frame in this behalf and such return shall be accompan....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Bombay, (1997) 6 SCC 564 /hereinafter referred as 'Sun Export Case for brevity, namely the question is What is the interpretative rule to he applied while interpreting a tax exemption Reportable provision/ notification when there is an ambiguity as to its applicability with reference to the entitlement of the assessee or the rate of tax to be applied? 2. in Sun Export Case (supra), a three Judge Bench ruled that an ambiguity in a tax exemption provision or notification must be interpreted so as to favour the assessee claiming the benefit of such exemption. Such a rule was doubted when this appeal was placed before a Bench of two Judges. The matter then went before a three Judge Bench consisting one of us (Rarijan Gogoi, J.). The three Judge Bench having noticed the unsatisfactory state of law as it stands today, opined that the dicta in Sun Export Case (supra), requires reconsideration and that is how the matter has been placed before this Constitution Bench. 22. The Constitution Bench of Hon. Supreme Court of India in this case has held as under: To sum up, we answer the reference holding as under 1) Exemption notification should be interpreted strictly; the burden o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rchase of the property and if such investment is made within the period stipulated therein, then Section 54F(4) is not at all attracted and therefore, the contention that the assessee has not deposited the amount in the Bank account as stipulated and therefore, he is not entitled to the benefit even though he has invested the money in construction is also not correct." Hence, if the assessee has invested entire sale consideration within three years, then the requirement of complying with provisions of sec.54F(4) cannot come into the way of the assessee for claiming deduction u/s 54F of the Act. 8. The next reason cited by the AO is that the assessee has not completed the construction within 3 years of date of transfer of original asset. In this regard, the Ld A.R placed his reliance on the decision rendered by Hon'ble jurisdictional Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sambandam Udaykumar (20120(345 ITR 389)(Kar), wherein the High Court has observed as under:- "11. Section 45 of the Act makes it very clear that any profits or gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset effected in the previous year shall, save or otherwise provided in sections 54, 54B, 54D, 54E, 5....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rued as per the decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai vs. M/s Dilip Kumar and Company (Civil Appeal No.3327 of 2007). The Ld A.R submitted that the Ahmedabad bench of Tribunal has examined an identical question in the case of DCIT vs. Shri Pankaj Chimanlal Patel (HUF) (ITA No.3179/Ahd/2016 dated 12.12.2018) and has held that the decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip Kumar and Company (supra) cannot be invoked while examining the issue of deduction u/s 54F of the Act. We notice that the Ahmedabad Bench has observed as under in the above cited case:- "11. However, to address the concern of Revenue for strict construction of beneficial provisions in the light of Dilip Kumar & Co. (supra), we notice that the deduction under s.54F of the Act essentially depends upon the extent of utilization of the sale proceeds in the new asset. The benefits of Section 54F of the Act also stands denied where the assessee owns more than one residential house other than new asset on the date of transfer of the original asset. The object of Section 54F is to encourage an assessee to convert any of his long term assets....