9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (4) TMI 499 - HC - Income TaxExemption u/s 54F - Sale of gricultural land and residential house - The assessee purchased a residential house from the sale proceeds so received - Held that - subsection(4) of Section 139 of the Act is in fact a proviso to Section 139(1) of the Act - Therefore, since the assessee has invested the sale proceeds in a residential house within the extended period of limitation, the capital gain is not payable. The judgments in Rajesh Kumar Jalan s case (2006 (8) TMI 126 - GAUHATI High Court) and Fathima Bai s case (2008 (10) TMI 563 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ) were referred too. In the present case, the assessee has proved the payment of substantial amount of sale consideration for purchase of a residential property on or before 31.3.2008, that is within extended period of limitation of filing of return. Only a sum of Rs.24 lacs was paid out of total sale consideration of Rs. Two Crores on 23.4.2008, though possession was delivered to the assessee on execution of the power of attorney on 30.3.2008 - Since the assessee, has acquired a residential house before the end of the next Financial Year in which sale has taken place, therefore, the assessee is not liable to pay any capital gain. Such is the view taken by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Decided in favor of assessee.
Issues:
- Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'D' New Delhi for the assessment year 2007-08. - Disallowance of claim of exemption u/s 54F of the I.T. Act due to failure to deposit unutilized consideration of capital gains in the Capital Gains Accounts Scheme. - Interpretation of Sections 54F(4) and 139(1) & (4) of the Income Tax Act. - Validity of the Tribunal's order setting aside the addition of long term capital gains made by the Assessing Officer. - Compliance with the provisions of Section 54F of the Act regarding the deposit of sale proceeds in a capital gain account or acquisition of a new asset within the prescribed period. Analysis: The case involves an appeal by the Revenue against the Tribunal's order regarding the disallowance of an exemption claim under Section 54F of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2007-08. The issue revolves around whether the assessee failed to comply with the requirements of depositing the unutilized consideration of capital gains in the Capital Gains Accounts Scheme as per the Act. The Revenue contended that the Tribunal erred in reversing the finding of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Rohtak, who had upheld the addition of Rs.76,85,829 under 'long term capital gains' by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's order, stating that the assessee had purchased a residential house within the prescribed period under Section 139 of the Act, making the addition not sustainable. The Revenue argued that the assessee did not deposit the sale proceeds in the capital gain account within the specified time frame, as required by Section 54F(4) of the Act. The relevant provisions of the Act were examined, emphasizing the necessity of complying with the deposit requirements before furnishing the return of income under Section 139. Citing precedents from the Gauhati High Court and the Karnataka High Court, the judgment highlighted the importance of understanding the extended due dates under Section 139(4) for filing returns and the utilization of capital gains within the stipulated period. The Division Bench of the High Court, including one of the judges from the present case, concluded that the provisions of Section 54F(4) should be read in conjunction with Section 139(1) of the Act, and the assessee's investment in a residential property within the extended period exempted them from paying capital gains. Ultimately, the High Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the Tribunal's decision based on the assessee's compliance with acquiring a residential house within the extended period of limitation for filing returns. The judgment emphasized the significance of timely compliance with statutory provisions and the interpretation of relevant sections to determine the applicability of exemptions under the Income Tax Act.
|
