Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2022 (10) TMI 544

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ng long term capital gain on sale of property merely on the ground that the appellant had failed to deposit the amount in the Capital Gains Account Scheme and also failed to purchase the house property before the due date of filing of return of income as per Section 139(1) of the Act. 2. In rejecting the explanation, clarification and reliance on the judicial precedence of the various courts submitted by the appellant relating to that Section 54 of the Act being the beneficial provision, it should be construed liberally to advance the object of giving the benefit to the Appellant. 3. In failing to understand that the requirement to invest in a bank account under the Capital Gains Account Scheme is a procedural requirement to ensure investment is made in a residential house as claimed in the return of income. Merely because of the technical breach/ non-compliance, the benefit due to the Appellant by the legislature cannot be denied particularly when substantive compliance was made. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit, substitute or amend the above grounds of appeal, at any time before or at, the time of hearing of the appeal, so as to enable the Hon'ble In....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s. ITO in ITA No. 272/Chd/2017 for AY 2013-14. vi. Rajendra Pal Verma Vs. ACIT [2019] 104 taxmann.com 303 (Mum. Trib.) vii. ITO Vs. Pamela Pritam Ghoseh in ITA No. 5644/Mum/2016 dated 27.07.2018. viii. Hasmukh N. Gala Vs. ITO [2017] 83 taxmann.com 149 (Mum. Trib.) 7. Ld. CIT(A) relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Humayun Suleman Merchant in ITA No. 545 of 2002 dated 18.08.2016 after considering various other judgements on the time available for investment, the Court has adjudicated a similar issue- time limit upto which the invested amount is to be considered for exemption u/s.54F. The condition of 54(2) & 54F(4) are identical with respect to the time limit except that 54F required entire sale proceeds to be invested and 54 stipulates only the amount of capital gain to be invested. All other conditions of time lines are identical. The Court has held that only the amount invested before filing return of income is eligible for exemption. 8. Section 54 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("Act") provides for exemption of capital gains arising to a specified assessee from transfer of a long term capital asset to the extent capital gains are inve....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t be said to mean only section 139(1), but it means all sub-sections of section 139. 11. It may be noted that the aforesaid provision mandates that the period of utilization or appropriation of the capital gains in purchase or construction of the new residential house is to be considered till the due date under section 139 [which also covers sub-section (4) and (5) of section 139]. However, for the purpose of taking the benefit of Capital Gains Account Scheme, the time limit for making such deposit has been prescribed to be till the due date under section 139(1) [see the text of section 54(2) as contained in the parenthesis]. 12. In other words, the sub-section (2) clearly provides a pigeonhole in the sense that the investment by way of purchase or construction, without resorting to the Capital Gains Account Scheme, can be made till the date of belated return under section 139(4) or revised return under section 139(5) as the wordings used in section 54(2) is "section 139", and not section 139(1), which covers all subsections of section 139". The Supreme Court, in the context of interpretation of provisions of 276CC, in Prakash Nath Khanna v. CIT [2004] 135 Taxman 327/264 ITR 1 (S....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....g with appeal of the revenue may be different. The scheme for depositing capital gain is contemplated under Section 54F (4) and it depends upon when the property of the assessee is sold and when exactly the amounts were invested, whether it was invested in a residential house or otherwise. All these facts have to be considered with reference to provisions of Section 54F (4) along with Section 139 (1) of the Act, as the due time would be under Section 139(1) only not under Section 139(4) of the Act." 15. Tribunal, as a matter of fact, has accorded one more opportunity to the appellant assessee to place on record relevant facts for consideration and if his case were to be different from the facts of the other case and makes a vast difference altogether. So far as provisions of law are concerned, it is always open to him to place such facts before the Assessing Officer for consideration. However, Assessing Officer while applying the provisions of law, to the facts of a case without interdependent on facts of the other case has to consider the same. With these modifications, we dispose of the appeal directing the Assessing Officer to dispose of the matter in the light of the above obs....