9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (6) TMI 778X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2006 (8) TMI 126 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT] and FATHIMA BAI VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER [ 2008 (10) TMI 563 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] , held that assessee was entitled to exemption of the entire investment upto the date of filing the return u/s 139(4) of the Act. The assessee s case is squarely covered by the above judgements, therefore, this ground of assessee s appeal is allowed. Benefit of the cost incurred for developing the Agricultural Land - Assesee submitted that such amount was received in lieu of residual things available on the land sold - Therefore, no addition should be made - HELD THAT:- Assessee has also not furnished reliable evidence in respect of the claim of compensation on certain things, therefore such claim is unsustainable claim. In absence of any evidence and with the fact that the amount was received at and around the time of sale of the land from the same person, we are of the view that this was the sale consideration received towards the sale of the land. The surrounding circumstances also show that this amount received towards the sale consideration of land. For holding so, we get the support from the decision of Hon ble Allahabad High Court in the case of DINES ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of ₹ 45,36,000/- made by the Assessing Officer representing sale of crops and temporary structure to store the crops standing on the agricultural land sold to M.s Sarv Sanjhi Construction (P) Ltd. B-47, Connaught Place, New Delhi, assessed by the AO, under the head 'Income from other sources' without any justification for the same. Without prejudice to the said contention, the sale should have been assessed under the head 'Agricultural income' after allowing the expenditure incurred in cultivating the said crops. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the levy of interest u/s 234B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 which is unjustified and illegal. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or modify any of the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing of the appeal." 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and during the relevant financial year, he has sold agricultural land and a residential house located at Karnal. He has declared the sale consideration of ₹ 2.16 crores for the agricultural land and ₹ 8.25 lacs for residential house. The return of in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... act is evident from page 8 of the sale deed placed at page 43 of the paper book. The balance amount was also invested prior to the time permissible for filing return u/s 139 of the Income-tax Act. He pleaded that for claiming the exemption u/s 54F, the assessee was required to deposit the amount of capital gain either in the capital gain account scheme or invest in the new house before the due date of filing of return of income within the period prescribed under section 139. In this case, the due date by which the return could be filed u/s 139(4) was 31.3.2009 while the assessee has invested whole of the amount by 23.04.2008. Therefore, the assessee is entitled for the benefit of claim of exemption u/s 54F of Income-tax Act, for which he relied on the following decisions :- (i) Fatima Bai vs. ITO (2009) 32 DTR (Kar.) 243; and (ii) CIT vs. Rajesh Kumar Jalan, 286 ITR 274 (Gau.) He also relied on the decision of ITAT in the case of P.R. Kulkarni & Sons (HUF) vs. ACIT (2011) 49 DTR (Bang.)(Tri.) 442 and Abdul Bashar Siddiqui vs. ITO, ITA No.3628/Del/2009 (Delhi Tribunal). The intention of the assessee was always to get the benefit of capital gains account scheme and the mistake was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... operate without rendering wither of them otiose. Finally he submitted that in the case of Rajesh Kumar Jalan which was relied by the assessee, it is held that "Statutory enactments must ordinarily be construed according to its plain meaning and no words shall be added, altered or modified unless it is plainly necessary to do so to prevent a provision from being unintelligible, absurd, unreasonable, unworkable or totally irreconcilable with the rest of the same." In view of the above, it is respectfully submitted that in order to make the provisions of section 54F sensible, workable and rational, a harmonious reading of both the limbs of sub-section (4) is necessary. That is 'section 139' that appear in the first limb of the section 54F(4) should read in context of due date as per section 139(1) mentioned in the second limb. In other words, section 139 mentioned in the first limb of section 54F(4) would impliedly mean only the return of income filed in the normal course u/s 139(1) in order to be consonant with the time limit provided in the second limb for depositing the net sale consideration before the date u/s 139(1). Learned DR finally submitted that without prejudice to the abo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owever, the assessee had utilised the entire capital gains by purchase of a house property within the stipulated period of s. 54(2) i.e., before the extended due date for return under s. 139. The assessee technically may have defaulted in not filing the return under s. 139(4). But, however, utilised the capital gains for purchase of property before the extended due date under s. 139(4). The contention of the Revenue that the deposit in the scheme should have been made before the initial due date and not the extended due date is an untenable contention.-CIT vs. Rajesh Kumar Jalan (2006) 206 CTR (Gau) 361 :(2006) 286 ITR 274 (Gau) concurred with." In the assessee's case, the amount has been invested prior to the due date by which the return could be filed u/s 139 of the Act. A similar view has also been held in the case of CIT vs. Rajesh Kumar Jalan, cited supra, by the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held as under :- "Interpretation of statutes-Beneficial provision-Purposive construction-In construing beneficial enactment, the view that advances the object of the enactment and serves its purpose must be preferred to the one which obstructs th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 00/-. 9. On this issue, the learned AR submitted that the assessee has received this amount in lieu of other residual things available on the land which was sold. He submitted that when the agricultural land was sold it was having the crops over it and part of amount received for the same. It is also claimed that the payments were as per agreement dated 20.6.2006. It is claimed that there was a dera, pucca drains, brick flooring for approach road, barbed wire fencing all around the land, crops. For the crops of vegetables and fruits, the assessee has received ₹ 13,90,000/-. He also claimed that the amount of ₹ 18,80,000/- was also received for settlement of labourers and he pleaded that it should not be assessed as income from other sources. The details submitted are as under :- Sl.Nos. ITEMS Amount of Compensation 01. Dera (2 rooms 15x12' each) Hand Pump & Boundary wall measuring 30x40 Sq.Yards = 120 Sq.Yards =1 140 yard in length and 2 yard high 7,00,000.00 02. Pucca Drains 1,00,000.00 03. Brick Flooring for approach Road 65 yards 1,70,000.00 04. Barbed wire fencing all around the land 4.50 Acres 3,00,000.00 05. Crops (i) Potato (ii) Shimla Mirch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly, there is no reliable evidence in respect of the claim made for the compensation of the labourers. In absence of any evidence in this regard and with the fact that the amount was received at and around the time of sale of the land from the same person, we are of the view that this was the sale consideration received towards the sale of the land. The surrounding circumstances also show that this amount received towards the sale consideration of land. For holding so, we get the support from the decision of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Dinesh Kumar Mittal vs. ITO reported in 193 ITR 770 where the Hon'ble High Court has held that there is no rule of law to the effect that the value determined for the purpose of stamp duty is the actual consideration passing between the parties to a sale. The actual consideration may be more or may be less. What is the actual consideration that passed between the parties is a question of fact to be determined in each case, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. As we have stated above, the facts and circumstances of the case show that this amount of ₹ 45,36,000/- was received towards the sale considerat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
