Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2016 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (9) TMI 700 - HC - Income TaxDeduction u/s 54F - assessee having not complied with the requirement of depositing the amount by the due date, namely before filing of the return under Section 139(1) - ITAT allowed the claim - Held that - The alleged non-compliance of the provisions of Section 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is that the amount was paid into the Special Capital Gain Account maintained by the respondent-assessee with the same branch of the Bank after a delay of one day, namely, on 31.07.2008 instead of on 30.07.2008. The Tribunal has recorded a finding of fact that the assessee had infact on the same day i.e. 30.07.2008 instructed the Bank to transfer the money from his saving account to Special Capital Gain Account maintained by him with the same branch. This finding of fact cannot be said to be perverse. As a matter of fact, the Bank transferred the money on the very next day. It is not the revenue s case that separate instructions were given on the next day either in writing or orally to the Bank to transfer the amount to the Special Capital Gain Account. Therefore, the same does not raise a substantial question of law. The appeal in this regard is dismissed. Addition on account of investment made in residential house by the company in which the assessee is one of the directors - ITAT allowed the claim - Held that - The second question proceeds on the erroneous basis that the investment in the residential houses was made by the assessee. The Company had only lent money to the assessee to enable him to purchase the property.
Issues:
1. Delay in re-filing the appeal 2. Allowance of deduction u/s 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 3. Exemption of investment made in residential house by the company Analysis: 1. The judgment addresses the issue of condoning a delay of 980 days in re-filing the appeal. The Chief Justice, in an oral order, states that the delay is condoned based on the reasons presented in the application. The application is disposed of accordingly. 2. The appeal involves the first substantial question of law regarding the deduction under Section 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appellant contests the compliance with the requirement of depositing the amount before filing the return. The Tribunal found that the money was instructed to be transferred on time, and the delay in actual transfer was due to the bank's processing. Since no separate instructions were given the next day, the finding is upheld, and the appeal on this ground is dismissed. 3. The second substantial question pertains to the exemption of investment in a residential house by the company. The judgment clarifies that the investment was made by the company, not the assessee individually. The company had provided funds to the assessee for purchasing the property. Consequently, the appeal on this issue is also dismissed. In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeal concerning the delay in re-filing, deduction u/s 54F, and exemption of investment in a residential house by the company. The judgment provides detailed reasoning for each issue, emphasizing compliance with legal provisions and factual findings.
|