TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (7) TMI 1283
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 'Ld.CIT(A)'], vide order dated 21.06.2023 for assessment year (AY) 2016-17. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under: "1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Assessing Officer has erred in disallowing deduction of Rs. 14,91,361/- u/s 54B of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of hearing of the appeal." 2. The facts of the case in brief are that assessee filed his return of income (in short 'ROI') on 29.03.2017 declaring total income of Rs. 1,04,46,420/-. The case was selected for scrutiny issued notice u/s 143(2) on 26.09.2017. In response to notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Act. In order to avail the benefit of Section 54B of the Act, the assessee is required to utilize the capital gain before the due date of filing of return of income or should have deposited the unutilized capital in specified bank under Capital Gains Account Scheme, 1988 before due date for furnishing the return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act. Therefore, AO added the addition of Rs. 14,91,361/- u/s 54B of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). 3. During appellate proceedings, CIT(A) observed that assessee has purchased an agriculture land on 29.04.2017, which is beyond the time limit allowed as per the provisions of Section 54 of the Act. Therefore, the CIT(A) confirmed the action of AO by stat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Devi vs. ITO in ITA No.678/JP/2018 dated 12.04.2019; and (iv) Smt. Harminder Kaur vs. ITO in ITA No.2656/Del/2017 dated 10.02.2021. 5. On the other hand, Ld.Sr-DR for the Revenue supported the order of lower authorities. He submitted that the conditions of Section 54B are not fulfilled in case of the assessee. Hence, the AO has rightly disallowed deduction of Rs. 14,91,361/- claimed u/s 54B of the Act. Such disallowance has been rightly upheld by the CIT(A). 6. We have heard rival submissions of the parties and perused the materials on record. We have also deliberated on the decisions relied upon by Ld.AR of the assessee. Before proceeding to discuss the merit of the claim, it would be proper to reproduce Section 54B which reads as u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... notification in the Official Gazette, frame in this behalf and such return shall be accompanied by proof of such deposit; and, for the purposes of sub-section (1), the amount, if any, already utilised by the as assessee or the purchase of the new asset together with the amount so deposited shall be deemed to be the cost of the new asset: Provided that if the amount deposited under this sub-section is not utilised wholly or partly for the purchase of the new asset within the period specified in sub-section (1), then,- (i) the amount not so utilised shall be charged under section 45 as the income of the previous year in which the period of two years from the date of the transfer of the original asset expires; and (....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he two different expressions for calculation of time limit gives different results. Section 139 includes both sub-section (1) and (4) of Section 139 of the Act. In the present case, we are concerned with the utilization of capital gains by purchase of new asset for which the legislature has referred to Section 139 of the Act and not 139(1) of the Act, which is referred to for deposit in capital gain scheme. Thus, a reasonable view may be taken to say that Section 139 would cover extended time limit provided u/s 139(4) of the Act in case of purchase of new agricultural land. Thus, when an assessee furnishes return subsequent to due date of filing return u/s 139(1) but within the extended time limit u/s 139(4), the benefit of investment made ....