9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (8) TMI 451 - AT - Income TaxDeduction u/s 54F - denial of claim for the reasons that the assessee had not furnished the return of income for the instant assessment year either u/s 139(1) or u/s 139(4) - assessee deposited the Long Term Capital Gain earned, in LTCG account scheme in the bank and also utilized the same - HELD THAT - Although the assessee had not filed the return of income under section 139(1) of the Act but deposited the total sale consideration from residential plot held as LTCG asset in the bank account and also utilized the same for purchase of the house within the time allowed- deduction claimed under section 54F of the Act by the assessee cannot be denied on the sole ground that no return of income was filed by the assessee under section 139(1) of the Act. Respectfully following the aforesaid referred to orders by the Coordinate Benches of the ITAT, are of the view that the A.O. was not justified in denying the claim of the assessee for deduction under section 54F of the Act and the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the action of the A.O. therefore, the addition made by the A.O. and sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) is deleted. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Determination of total income. 2. Initiation and completion of proceedings under section 147/143(3) of the Income Tax Act. 3. Disallowance of claim of deduction under section 54F of the Income Tax Act. 4. Levy of interest under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C of the Income Tax Act. Detailed Analysis: 1. Determination of Total Income: The assessee challenged the determination of total income at ?31,28,950 as against the declared income of ?1,41,950. The appellant contended that the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred both in law and on facts in upholding this determination. 2. Initiation and Completion of Proceedings under Section 147/143(3): The appellant argued that the initiation of proceedings under section 147 and the completion of assessment under section 147/143(3) were without jurisdiction and should be quashed. The appellant claimed there was no specific, relevant, reliable, and tangible material on record to form a "reason to believe" that income had escaped assessment. Furthermore, it was argued that there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. The appellant also contended that the reasons recorded were mechanical and lacked application of mind, and there was no valid approval obtained under section 151. 3. Disallowance of Claim of Deduction under Section 54F: The primary issue was the disallowance of the claim of deduction under section 54F amounting to ?29,87,000. The assessee had not furnished the return of income for the relevant assessment year under sections 139(1) or 139(4) and submitted the return only after a notice under section 148. The Assessing Officer (A.O.) observed that the assessee had sold a residential property and claimed exemption on long-term capital gains (LTCG) under section 54F. However, the A.O. disallowed the claim as the amount was deposited in the capital gain account scheme after the due date of filing the return under section 139(1). The appellant cited various judgments to support the argument that the extended period under section 139(4) should be considered for the purposes of utilizing the amount of capital gain. However, the A.O. and the CIT(A) held that the due date means the due date for filing the return under section 139(1) and not 139(4), relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Prakash Nath Khanna and Another Vs. CIT. 4. Levy of Interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C: The appellant also challenged the levy of interest under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C, arguing that these were not leviable on the facts of the case. Judgment: The ITAT considered the submissions and material on record. It was noted that the assessee sold a residential plot, earned LTCG, and deposited the amount in the capital gain account scheme, which was later utilized for purchasing a house. The A.O. denied the exemption under section 54F because the return of income was not furnished within the time allowed under section 139(1). The ITAT referred to similar cases where it was held that the benefit of section 54F could not be denied solely because the return was not filed within the time prescribed under section 139(1). The ITAT concluded that the assessee was entitled to claim the deduction under section 54F even if the return was not filed in due time under section 139(1), as the amount was deposited in the capital gain account scheme and utilized accordingly. Conclusion: The appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the addition made by the A.O. and sustained by the CIT(A) was deleted. The ITAT held that the assessee was entitled to the deduction under section 54F of the Act.
|
