2016 (2) TMI 1193 - AT - Income Tax

Deduction claimed u/s 54F - assessee has not filed the return of income in time and not deposited the amount in the Capital Gains Deposit Scheme 1998 within the stipulated time of furnishing the return of income - Held that - As decided in COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VERSUS RAJESH KUMAR JALAN. 2006 (8) TMI 126 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT Section 139 cannot mean only Section 139(1) but it means all sub-sections of Section 139. Under sub-Section (4) of Section 139 any person who has not furnished a return within the time allowed to him under sub-Section (1) of Section 142 may furnish the return for any previous year at any time before the expiry of one year from the end of the relevant assessment year or before the completion of the assessment whichever is earlier. Such being the situation it was the case of the assessee that he could fulfill the requirement u/s 54 for exemption of the capital gain from being charged to income-tax on the sale of property used for residence up to 30-3-1998 inasmuch as the return of income tax for the assessment year 1996-97 could be furnished before the expiry of one year form the end of the relevant assessment year or before the completion of the assessment whichever is earlier under sub-Section (4) of Section 139. Also see COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-II CHANDIGARH VERSUS MS. JAGRITI AGGARWAL 2011 (10) TMI 279 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT - Decided in favour of the assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Deduction under section 54F denied due to non-deposit in Capital Gain Account Scheme.
2. Interpretation of time limits under section 54F for construction of new house and deposit in capital gain account scheme.
3. Claiming exemption for capital gains utilized in construction of new house within three years of transfer date.
4. Disallowance of deduction by AO for not depositing capital gains amount by due date of filing return.
5. Filing return in response to notice u/s 148 and eligibility for deduction under section 54F.

Analysis:
1. The appellant's appeal was against the CIT(A)'s order for the assessment year 2008-09, where the appellant claimed deduction under section 54F for long-term capital gains. The appellant, along with family members, sold land and apportioned the sale consideration. The AO disallowed the deduction as the appellant did not deposit the amount in the Capital Gain Account Scheme. The appellant contended that the amount was utilized in constructing a new house within three years of the transfer date, but the AO denied the claim.

2. The appellant argued that under section 54F, two time limits were provided: construction of a new house by the date of filing return u/s 139 and deposit in the capital gain account scheme by the due date of filing return u/s 139(1). The appellant cited various judgments supporting the view that if the amount is utilized for construction before filing the return u/s 139, the exemption should be allowed. The appellant provided proof of investment in the new house, including approvals, permissions, and completion certificates.

3. The ITAT found that the appellant sold the old property in 2007 and completed the new house in 2009, within the three-year limit. Although the appellant did not file the return in time, the capital gains were used for construction. Citing precedents, the ITAT allowed the appeal, emphasizing that if the return is filed in response to a notice u/s 148 and accepted, the appellant is entitled to the deduction under section 54F. The ITAT referred to similar cases where the exemption was allowed based on utilization of capital gains for construction within the stipulated time frame.

4. The ITAT's decision was based on the interpretation of section 54F and the timeline for construction and deposit of capital gains. The ITAT considered the appellant's compliance with the construction requirement within three years and the utilization of capital gains for the new house. By analyzing the documentary evidence provided by the appellant, the ITAT concluded that the appellant met the conditions for claiming the deduction under section 54F, despite not depositing the amount in the Capital Gain Account Scheme.

5. In conclusion, the ITAT allowed the appeal, following precedents and the appellant's compliance with the construction timeline under section 54F. The ITAT emphasized that filing the return in response to a notice u/s 148 and meeting the construction requirements within the specified period entitled the appellant to the deduction. The decision highlighted the importance of utilizing capital gains for construction within the prescribed time frame, leading to the allowance of the appellant's claim for exemption.