2023 (1) TMI 621

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....der section 54F of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, 'the Act') of Rs.87,89,121/-. 3. Briefly stated, facts of the case as culled out from the order of the lower authorities and submissions of the assessee are that - (i) In Assessment year 2008-09, the assessee had shown a long term capital gain of Rs.5,43,70,902/- against which the assessee deposited Rs.50,00,000/- under 'Capital gains Account Scheme, 1998' and claimed exemption under section 54F amounting to Rs.23,50,00,000/-. Though the said claim of exemption was disallowed by the Assessing Officer, however, the same was allowed in the order passed by the by the Assessing Officer consequent to the order of the ITAT dated 26/12/2016; (ii) The period of 3 years deposit from the sale of original property expired on April 2, 2010 and the assessee was supposed to pay the capital gain tax on the unutilized balance lying in the capital gains account which was of Rs.2,90,29,120/-. (iii) For the year under consideration, the assessee filed regular return of income on 29/09/2011 declaring total income at Rs.12,83,110/-. The assessment under section 143(3) was completed on 31/01/2014 accepting returned income. Subsequently, the asse....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e considered view as to whether, based upon the factual and situational matrix of the case, the question to be answered is whether or not for the successful claim of deduction u/s,54F, has the appellant invested the unutilized amount remaining in the Capital Gain Account within the stipulated period of 3 years? In this case, this question will have to be answered in the negative, since, it is an undisputed fact that the appellant has utilized only Rs.59.,79,880/- till April 02, 2010, thereby making it clear that the unutilized balance amount is Rs.2,90,29,120/-. It is also relevant to note, however, that the appellant has made further payment of Rs.87,89,121/- in May 2012. Consequently, it was argued that benefit of Section 54F(2) should also be allowed for these amounts as the circumstances were beyond the control of the appellant, 1 note that it is crystal clear that in case of the appellant, an amount of Rs.2,90,29,120/- is the unutilized amount on which appellant has already paid, taxes, being unutilized amount in Capital Gains account as on April 03,2010 as per provisions of Section 54F(4) of the Act. 5.5 Therefore, what is now relevant to be adjudicated as to what shall be ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...."In case of ambiguity in a charging provision, benefit must necessarily go in favour of assessee but the same is not true for an exemption notification. When there is ambiguity in exemption notification which is subject to strict interpretation, the benefit of such ambiguity cannot be claimed by the subject / assessee and it must be interpreted in favour of the revenue." It shall be very clear that, the above ratio of the Hon'ble Apex Court decision squarely applies to the appellant, since, what is being interpreted here is the deduction u/s.54F. As per the above decision, all the provisions have to be strictly interpreted including the time limit of 3 years for making good the unutilized investment. In the instant case, there is breach of this limit and hence the appellant shall be rendered disentitled to the said deduction. 5.7 The appellant has contended that since the breach of the three years cap in making the impugned investment was beyond the control of the appellant, hence, a liberal view may be taken. Many judicial precedents were also cited. However, the Apex Court decision in case of M/s Dilip Kumar and Company and Ors (cited supra) makes it amply clear that the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on the face of the language or itself without, adding, subtracting or omitting. words therefrom.. It is crystal. Clear in the present case, the stipulation of the limit of three years cannot be liberally extended, since, the legislature, in" its wisdom has prescribed the said limit. 5.9 Further, the following is noted: The first and primary rule of construction is that the intention of the Legislature must be found in the words used by the Legislature itself, The question is not what may be supposed and has been intended but what has been said. "Statutes should be construed not as Elucid". Judge Hand said, "but words must be construed with some imagination of the purposes which lie behind them" (see Lenigh Valley Coal Co. v. Yensavage 218 FR 547). This view was reiterated in (Union of India v. Filip Tiago De Gama of Vedem Dee Gama AIR 1990 SC 981); Literal rule is the principle rule for determining the legislative intent. 5.10 There is only one principle of construction, namely, to ascertain what Parliament meant by using the language of the statute. All other principles of construction are no more than guides assist the task of interpretation (Lord Hoffman in Macniven H.M. I....