9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (3) TMI 765 - AT - Income TaxExemption u/s 54F of the Act Determination of due date - Whether the due date mentioned in section 54F(4) is the due date for filing the return u/s 139(1) or the due date for filing the return of income u/s 139(4) of the Act - Held that - The decision in Prakash Nath Khanna And Another vs CIT 2004 (2) TMI 3 - SUPREME Court followed - due date means the due date for filing the return u/s 139(1) and not 139(4) the intentions of the Legislature was to permit the assessee to file the return u/s 139(4) also, the use of the expression section 139 alone would have been sufficed - The Legislature would not have said that it should be filed u/s 139(1) - When the Legislature specifically refers to section 139(1), it cannot be the intention to permit the assessee to file the return u/s 139(4) also - it cannot be said that the Legislature without any purpose or intent specified only the sub-sections (1) and (2) and the conspicuous omission of sub-section (4) has no meaning or purpose behind it - Sub-section (4) of section 139 cannot by any stretch of imagination control the operation of sub-section (1) wherein a fixed period for furnishing the return is stipulated. The judgment of the Apex Court was not considered by the CIT(A) - The assessee also had no occasion to bring this judgment to the notice of the CIT(A) - When Legislature specifically refers only section 139(1) and omitted to refer section 139(4), making a reference to section 139(4) cannot be proper the matter needs to be reconsidered by the AO in the light of the judgment of Prakash Nath Khanna And Another Vs CIT thus, the matter is remitted back to the AO for reconsideration Decided in favour of Revenue.
Issues:
Exemption u/s 54F of the Income Tax Act for assessment years 2005-06 and 2007-08. Analysis: The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Cochin involved a dispute regarding exemption u/s 54F of the Income Tax Act for the assessment years 2005-06 and 2007-08. The key issue was whether the unutilized portion of the net sale consideration liable for capital gain tax should be deposited in the capital gain account scheme within the due date for filing the return of income u/s 139(1) or u/s 139(4) of the Act. The Revenue argued that the assessee was not eligible for exemption as claimed since the amount was not deposited within the due date. The CIT(A) found that the house was constructed within three years but confused the investment with the transfer of the capital asset. The Revenue emphasized the provisions of section 54F(4) and cited the Kerala High Court judgment in CIT vs VR Desai (2011) 197 Taxman 52 (Ker). On the other hand, the assessee's counsel argued that constructing the residential house within three years made the assessee eligible for exemption without the need to deposit the amount in the capital gain account scheme. Referring to a previous Tribunal order and asserting that section 54F is a beneficial provision, the counsel contended that the time limit for filing the return of income u/s 139(4) should be considered. The Tribunal analyzed the provisions of section 54F, particularly sub-clause (4), which mandates the deposit of unutilized sale consideration within the due date for filing the return of income u/s 139. The Tribunal referred to the decision in Muthuletchumi Janardanan and the judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT vs Ms. Jagriti Aggarwal to interpret the term "due date" as the due date for filing the return u/s 139(1) based on the Supreme Court's interpretation in Prakash Nath Khanna vs CIT (2004) 266 ITR 1 (SC). The Tribunal concluded that the Apex Court's judgment was not considered by the CIT(A) and the previous Tribunal bench, necessitating a fresh consideration by the assessing officer in light of the Apex Court's judgment and the Kerala High Court's decision in V.R. Desai. Consequently, the orders of the lower authorities were set aside, and the issue of exemption u/s 54(F) was remanded to the assessing officer for reconsideration. Both appeals of the assessee and the revenue were allowed for statistical purposes.
|
