TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (11) TMI 535
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' hereinafter) for Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13 vide order dated 26/03/2015 (typed mistakenly as 26/03/2013 in the assessment order). 2. The assessee having expired on 03/05/2021, his son and legal heir, Shri Vikrant Kumar Jain, stands brought on record as his legal representative u/s. 159 of the Act, filing revised Form 36 (memorandum of appeal) before the Tribunal, adopting the same grounds as per the original Form 36, as under:- 1. The learned CIT (Appeals) has not appreciated that order has been passed by DCIT, Circle-1(1) by violating rule of natural justice. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that benefit of section ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... if any, u/s. 54F of the Act in view of the investment of the transfer proceeds. The reference to s.54C in Ground 2 of the Grounds of Appeal (GoA) is clearly a typing error; the correct provision being s. 54F. 4.1 It shall be relevant to discuss the background facts of the case, leading to the instant appeal, in brief. The assessee during the relevant previous year sold the following assets for Rs. 87.36 lacs, and purchased (along with Smt. Divya Jain, with 50% share each) a plot of land at Golebazar, Jabalpur, for a consideration of Rs. 85 lacs on 26/03/2012, claiming exemption u/s. 54F in respect of the entire capital gain, returned at Rs. 46.93 lacs: Particulars of the capital asset Amount in Rs. Date of transfer Flat 5....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....4.1 above), Shri Shrivastava, the ld. counsel for the assessee, was questioned by the Bench as to how could the assessee, irrespective of the merits of the issue raised, be allowed exemption u/s. 54F in view of the fact that the assessee admittedly had, at the time of sale of the agricultural land, the only capital asset sold qualifying for deduction u/s. 54F on the capital gain arising on its sale, more than one residential house, income of which is chargeable under the head 'income from house property'. This is as the same represents the primary condition for deduction u/s. 54F, which exempts capital gain on the investment of the sale proceeds on the transfer of a capital asset on the purchase or construction of a residential house within....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in the matter is trite, and once an appeal, otherwise valid, is filed with the Tribunal, it is bound to decide the same as per law (Rani Paliwal v. CIT [2004] 268 ITR 0220 (P&H)). The proceedings under the Act, it may be appreciated, are not in the nature of a lis between two parties (S.S. Gadgil v. Lal & Co. [1964] 53 ITR 231 (SC)). The Act is a public law, administered by the Income Tax Department, and the purview of the appellate authorities thereunder, subject to the limitations placed thereon by the Act itself, is the correct determination of tax chargeable thereunder, i.e., as per law, in the given facts and circumstances of the case. The permission for withdrawal of the appeal, which was also objected to, and only rightly so, by Shr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....11 & 27 of the Tribunal Rules are not exhaustive the powers of the Tribunal, being only procedural in character, which do not control or circumscribe it's power (Hukumchand Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1967] 63 ITR 232 (SC)). The said power is, as afore-noted, confined to the subject matter of appeal. In the facts of that case, the issue arising before the Tribunal was discerned by it as the proper written down value (WDV) of the assets of the assessee-company for calculating the depreciation allowance under the Act. 4.4 Coming to the facts of the case, none of the facts impinging adversely on the primary condition for a claim u/s. 54F have been denied by the assessee; he, rather admitting capital gain on the two Flats sold on 29/03/2012 & 30/03/2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n to that extent is not subject to tax. Legislative intent is the foundational basis of any interpretive exercise and, therefore, the Courts are to keep the object in view while interpreting a provision (CIT v. Baby Marine Exports [2007] 290 ITR 323 (SC)). What has been in effect and substance purchased in the instant case, as also evidenced by the sale deed, is only a plot of land for construction of a residential house thereon. Rather, but for the demolition having been completed by the date of inspection, no stamp duty would have been paid on the structure part. No case for construction of a residential house has been preferred or pressed at any stage, including before us. The assessee is, accordingly, not entitled to any exemption u/s. ....