TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (1) TMI 450
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the Assessing Officer (AO) in not admitting the claim of deduction made u/s.54F of the Act in respect of deposits made in the capital gains scheme account beyond the date specified in section 139(1) and determining the capital gain at Rs. 1,17,03,937/-. 4. The ld.Authorised Representative(AR) reiterated the same arguments as was raised by him before the ld.CIT(A) and has also relied upon the written submissions filed before the ld.CIT(A) and the same is reproduced in para 2.5 on the order of the same is reproduced below: "2.5 During the course of appeal proceedings, written submissions were made, relevant portion of which is reproduced below:- (i) CIT V/s Rajesh Kumar Jalan (2006) 286 ITR 274 (Gau). Gist of the judgment enclosed at Pages No. 8 & 9. (ii) CIT V/s Miss Jagriti Aggarwal (2011) 339 ITR 610 (P&H). Gist of the judgment enclosed at Pages No. 10 & 11. (iii) CIT V/s Jagtar Singh Chawla (2013) 259 CTR (P&H) 388. Gist of the judgment enclosed at Pages No. 12 & 13. The perusal of the above judgments clearly shows that the Hon'ble High Courts have laid down that the provisions of sub-section (4) of section 139 have to be tre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....om Ms. Siddhivinayak Corporation on 18.03.2011 . i.e. after the due date for filing Return of Income applicable to the appellant under the provisions of section 139(1) of the Act being 31.07.2010............... "(g) As your Honour is aware, the Hon'ble courts have held that the provisions of the Income-tax Act should not be so construed which would require the assessee to do an impossible act. Your Honour would appreciate that when a part of the consideration to the tune of 20,00,000/- was received by the appellant after the due date for filing the Return of Income applicable to the appellant under the provisions of section 139(1) of the Act i.e. 31.07.2010, the appellant cannot be required or expected to make the deposit of such sum not received into the capital gain bank account before 31.07.2010. As stated above, the appellant immediately on receipt of above sum of sale consideration of ,20,00,000/- from M/s. Siddhivinayak Corporation on 18.03.2011 deposited the same into the capital gain bank account on same day i.e. 18.03.2011 itself. Your Honour would recollect that the Id. A.O. has also stated in para No.4.2 on page No.6 of the Assessm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt beyond the due date specified in Sec.139(1) but before the time allowed for filing return u/s.139(4), i.e. 31.03.2011. There may be some confusion regarding the due date u/s.139(1), whether it is 31/07/2010 or 30/09/2010, but this has no effect on the question before me as deposits were made after these dates. The question to be decided is whether amounts deposited in the capital gain scheme account after the date specified in Se.c 139(1) would be eligible for computation of deduction u/s.54F if the amounts have been deposited before the date specified in Sec.139(4). The second question to be decided is whether the time limit specified for deposit in capital gain scheme account, i.e. the date specified in Se. 139(1), can be extended for reasons of hardship to the assessee. 2.7 The relevant section covering the dispute, i.e. Sec.54F(4) reads as under:- "The amount of the net consideration 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 tool place, or which is not utilised by him for the purchase or construction of the new asset before the date of furn....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., it has been held by the Court that "there is no scope for importing into importing into the statute words which are not there. Such importation would be, not to construe but to amend the statute. Even if there is casus omissus, the defect can be remedied only by legislation and not by judicial interpretation." It was further held by the Hon'ble Court that "once it is shown that the case of the assessee comes within the letter of the law, he must be taxed, however great the hardship may appear to the judicial mind to be". The wordings of Sec. 54F(4) as applicable in the case of the appellant are clear and unambiguous - deposits have to be made before the! due date u/s. 139(1) to avail the benefit available u/s 54F(1). To avail the benefit of deduction certain pre conditions are prescribed. When the pre conditions laid down had not been fulfilled, the benefit cannot be claimed. There is no reason to find out whether the directions are directory or mandatory. When the provision is that the benefit cannot be claimed if the amount is not deposited within the due dates specified u/s. 139(1), it is a mandatory direction which prescribes the consequences of omission. Reliance is plac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... above, the assessee had deposited the entire amount rather little more than that in the capital gain account with the bank before the due date for filing of return of income u/s.139(4) of the Act which was on 31.03.2012. The ld.CIT(A) has admitted the said fact in para no.2.6 of its order that the amount was deposited by the assessee within the due date specified u/s.139(4) of the Income Tax Act, but had rejected the claim of the assessee by holding that this amount ought to have been deposited not beyond the due date specified in section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act and in this respect had relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Smt.Tarulata Shyam Vs. CIT 108 ITR 345. We have gone through the facts of the case of Smt Tarulata Shyam (supra), we are of the view that the ld.CIT(A) has misinterpreted the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Smt. Tarulata Shyam as the pari-materia and the facts contained in that case was altogether different from the facts and circumstances of the present case. It is true that Hon'ble Apex Court has held that "there is no scope for importing into the statue words which are not there" whereas as per the facts ....