9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (11) TMI 532 - AT - Income TaxClaim of deduction u/s.54F - Held that - As the Hon ble Apex Court has held in the case of CIT vs. Vegetable Products Ltd.(1973 (1) TMI 1 - SUPREME Court ) as well as supported by several decisions of Superior Court that where there are two different decisions have been taken by the different High Court and there is no direct judgement of Jurisdictional High Court on the subject matter, then whichever judgement is in favour of the assessee, shall apply. Therefore keeping in view the ratio laid down by the Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the matter of CIT vs. K. Ramachandra Rao (2015 (4) TMI 620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ) wherein held that in the entire scheme there is no prohibition for the assessee putting up construction out of sale construction received by such transfer of a site which is owned by him as is clear from the language used. It is open for the assessee to put up a residential construction or to purchase a residential house. It is not the requirement of law that he should purchase a residential site and then putup construction., we set aside the order of the ld.CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the disallowance - Decided in favour of assessee
Issues Involved:
1. Rejection of the claim under Section 54F. 2. Determination of the due date for investment under Section 54F. 3. Application of conflicting High Court judgments. 4. Interpretation of Section 54F(4) requirements. Detailed Analysis: 1. Rejection of the claim under Section 54F: The Assessee's appeal challenges the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Ahmedabad, which confirmed the Assessing Officer's (AO) decision to reject the claim under Section 54F and disallow ?23,95,405/-. The Assessee argued that the investment in a new residential property was made within the stipulated period, qualifying for the deduction under Section 54F. 2. Determination of the due date for investment under Section 54F: The AO restricted the deduction to ?42,00,000/- and treated the remaining ?23,95,405/- as taxable because the Assessee did not deposit the unutilized portion of the capital gains in a specified account before the due date under Section 139(1). The Assessee contended that the due date should be considered under Section 139(4), as supported by the Gauhati High Court in CIT vs. Rajesh Kumar Jalan (286 ITR 274). The CIT(A) dismissed the Assessee's appeal, stating that since the Assessee had already filed the return under Section 139(1) on 15.10.2010, the due date under Section 139(4) was not applicable. The CIT(A) emphasized that deductions can only be claimed if the investment has been made before filing the return, and the Assessee had not deposited the unutilized capital gains in a specified account. 3. Application of conflicting High Court judgments: The Tribunal considered conflicting judgments from different High Courts. The Assessee relied on the Karnataka High Court's decision in CIT-Bangalore vs. K. Ramachandra Rao (56 taxmann.com 163), which supported the Assessee's position. Conversely, the Revenue cited the Bombay High Court's decision in Humayun Suleman Merchant vs. Chief CIT (73 taxmann.com 2), which contradicted the Assessee's claim. 4. Interpretation of Section 54F(4) requirements: The Tribunal analyzed the relevant legal provisions and judgments. The Karnataka High Court held that Section 54F(4) applies only if the sale consideration is not utilized for purchasing or constructing a residential house within the stipulated period. If the investment is made within the specified period, Section 54F(4) is not triggered. The Bombay High Court, however, emphasized that unutilized amounts must be deposited in a specified account before the due date under Section 139(1) to qualify for the exemption. The Tribunal noted that in cases of conflicting High Court judgments, the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Vegetable Products Ltd. (1973) AIR 927, 1973 SCR (3) 448 mandates that the interpretation favoring the Assessee should be adopted. Therefore, the Tribunal applied the Karnataka High Court's judgment in favor of the Assessee. Conclusion: The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the AO to delete the disallowance of ?23,95,405/-. The Assessee's appeal was allowed, recognizing the investment made within the stipulated period and applying the favorable interpretation of Section 54F(4) as per the Karnataka High Court's judgment. Result: The appeal of the Assessee was allowed.
|
