9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (6) TMI 5 - AT - Income TaxDeduction u/s 54 on account of investment made in new residential house - amount paid/invested upto the due date of filing of return u/s 139(1) - Held that - It is the settled proposition of law that when there are two views on a particular issue and there is no decision of the Jurisdictional High Court on that issue then the decision which is in favour of the assessee should be adopted. Since the assessee in the instant case has made payment of 1, 35, 16, 645/- before the due date of filing of return u/s 139(4) of the Act therefore we are of the considered opinion that the assessee is entitled to deduction u/s 54 of the Act to the extent of 1, 35, 16, 645/-. Payment of the above amount is not doubted. Therefore it is immaterial as to from where the assessee has obtained the money and paid the amount. In this view of the matter we hold that the assessee is entitled to deduction u/s 54 of the Act of 1, 35, 16, 645/- as against 81, 72, 207/- allowed by the A.O. - Decided partly in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Deduction under Section 54 of the Income Tax Act. 2. Compliance with Section 139(1) and Section 139(4) for filing returns. 3. Charging of interest under Sections 234A, 234B, 234C, and 234D of the Income Tax Act. Detailed Analysis: 1. Deduction under Section 54 of the Income Tax Act: The primary issue revolves around the assessee's eligibility for deduction under Section 54 of the Income Tax Act. The assessee sold a residential property and declared a long-term capital gain of ?1,45,80,180/-. He claimed a deduction of ?1,52,14,375/- under Section 54 for investment in a new residential house. The Assessing Officer (A.O) allowed only ?81,72,207/- as the deduction, reasoning that the remaining amount was not deposited in the Capital Gain Scheme Account before the due date of filing the return under Section 139(1). The assessee argued that payments for the new property were made within the stipulated time under Section 54F and cited various judicial decisions supporting the view that the due date for investment can be extended to the date of filing returns under Section 139(4). The Tribunal considered precedents from the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, Karnataka High Court, and Gauhati High Court, which supported the assessee's claim that investments made up to the extended due date under Section 139(4) qualify for deduction under Section 54. The Tribunal noted that the assessee made payments totaling ?1,35,16,645/- before the extended due date under Section 139(4) and concluded that the assessee is entitled to a deduction of ?1,35,16,645/- under Section 54, instead of ?81,72,207/- as allowed by the A.O. The Tribunal emphasized that in the absence of a jurisdictional High Court decision, the view favoring the assessee should be adopted, citing the principle established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vegetable Products. 2. Compliance with Section 139(1) and Section 139(4) for Filing Returns: The Tribunal addressed the compliance with Section 139(1) and Section 139(4) regarding the filing of returns. The A.O restricted the deduction to payments made before the due date under Section 139(1). However, the Tribunal accepted the assessee's argument, supported by judicial precedents, that the due date under Section 139(4) should be considered for the purpose of Section 54 deductions. The Tribunal cited decisions where courts held that the extended due date under Section 139(4) is effectively a proviso to Section 139(1), allowing for a more extended period to fulfill the requirements for deductions. 3. Charging of Interest under Sections 234A, 234B, 234C, and 234D: The assessee contested the charging of interest under Sections 234A, 234B, 234C, and 234D. The Tribunal held that the charging of interest under these sections is mandatory and consequential, thus dismissing the assessee's ground on this issue. Conclusion: The appeal was partly allowed. The Tribunal granted the assessee a deduction under Section 54 for ?1,35,16,645/- instead of ?81,72,207/-, providing relief of ?53,44,438/-. The Tribunal dismissed the ground related to the charging of interest under Sections 234A, 234B, 234C, and 234D, affirming that these are mandatory and consequential. The order was pronounced in the open court on 25.04.2017.
|
