TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (4) TMI 644
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....5 whereby and whereunder the claim made by the appellant under Section 54F to the tune of Rs. 35,07,459/- has been confirmed. 2. As per records, the appeal before the Tribunal has been filed by the assessee beyond the time limit. The delay of 07 days is condoned on due consideration of facts and owing to smallness of delay causing no perceptible prejudice to the other side. 3. The case of the assessee is this that the assessee sold an immovable property bearing Plot No. 182/1, 182/2 and 182/3 at Sushrusha Cooperative Housing Society lying and situated at Swagat Park at Thaltej, Ahmedabad for a consideration of Rs. 71,95,620/- with another co-owner having 50% share on the said sale. The said property was purchased way back in F.Y. 2003-04 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....spect of limitation period. It was further contended by the Ld.AR that the appellant has also purchased newly constructed asset within the time allowed by the provisions of Section 54F(1) and, therefore, deduction is to be allowed to the extent of the investment in the said new asset. 5. On the other hand, the Ld. DR relied upon the orders passed by the authorities below. 6. We have heard the rival submissions made by the respective parties, we have also perused the relevant materials available on record including various judgments relied upon by the Ld. Counsel appearing for the assessee which we propose to deal in the forthcoming paragraph. It appears from the record that the assessee on 03.07.2013 sold an immovable property with anoth....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der Section 139 of the Act. Therefore, Section 139 cannot be confined only to the provisions of the Section 139(1), but it includes all the sub section of Section 139 of the Act. On this issue we have considered the judgment passed by the Gauhati High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Rajesh Kumar Jalan, reported in [2016] 157 taxman 398 (Gauhati) where the assessee sold his one-fourth share in a residential property for a consideration to the State Government on 21.12.1995 and earned capital gain. The assessee negotiated and entered into the two agreements dated 09.05.1996 and 17.05.1996 with the owners 'R' and 'A' for the purchase of their residential flat for a consideration. The Assessing Officer rejected the assessee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....il the requirement under section 54 of the Income-tax Act for exemption of the capital gain from being charged to income-tax on the sale of property used for residence up to 30-3-1998, inasmuch as the return of income-tax for the assessment year 1997-98 could be furnished before the expiry of one year from the end; of the relevant assessment year or before the completion of %e assessment whichever is earlier under sub-section (4) of section 139 of the Income-tax Act, 1961." On the interpretation of the beneficial provision of Section 54F the Hon'ble High Court has further been pleased to rely upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Bhavnagar University vs. Palitana Sugar Mills (P.) Ltd. reported in [2003] 2 SCC ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t in construction or any purchase 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."" Apart from that we have carefully considered the judgment passed in the matter of ITO vs. Nilima Abhijit Tannu passed by the ITAT, Mumbai Benches, reported in [2019] 106 Taxmann.com 256 (Mumbai - Trib.) where the same issue has cropped up and it was observed that when the unutilized portion of capital gain on sale of capital asset is required to be deposit....