9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 72X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng of the return and utilized the same subsequently, and therefore, benefit u/s 54F cannot be denied to the assessee - appeal allowed - decided in favor of assessee. - ITA No. 98/VIZ/2014 - - - Dated:- 28-4-2017 - SHRI V. DURGA RAO, HON BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Assessee : Shri G.V.N. Hari Advocate. For The Department : Shri S.R.S. Narayan Sr.DR ORDER PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Visakhapatnam, dated 17/02/2014 for the Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that assessee is an individual, filed his return of income on 30/09/2010 un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3. During F.Y. 2011-12 ₹ 8,52,316 (Construction completed on 9/2011) Total ₹ 44,78,087 I submit that as per section 54 for exemption of capital pins invested in construction of residential house property within a period of three years after the date of transfer and the entire investment is exempted and I sold my land on 12/11/2009 and further completed construction on September 2011 i.e., construction completed within two years. I state that as the long term capital gains arrived at ₹ 53,59,662 and cost of residential construction comes around ₹ 4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or all the amounts utilized for purchase / construction of new asset before the date of furnishing the return under section 139. For this alternative, both returns filed under section 139(1) and 139(4) can be considered. Therefore, the amount utilized upto 31/03/2012 i.e. the last day of furnishing return of income under section 139(4) for the Assessment Year 2010-11 has to be considered for the time limit. However, the Assessing Officer has not accepted the explanation of the assessee and denied exemption under section 54F on the ground that assessee has not invested the amount as specified in section 54F of the Act. 5. On appeal, ld. CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to allow the benefit under section 54F to the extent of investmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessee only incurred expenditure towards cost of construction of ₹2,05,395/- and allowed only the same amount. The balance amount of ₹ 39,66,605/- not appropriated before filing of return of income for Assessment Year 2010-11, benefit under section 54F was denied. On appeal, ld. CIT(A) confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. We find that, to claim benefit under section 54F, the time limit has been prescribed in section 139 of the Act. Various Courts have been interpreted that section 54F being a beneficial provision, it has to be construed liberally and extended time limit as provided under section 139(4) of the Act. 11. In the case of Rajesh Kumar Jalan (supra), the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court held that assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee has filed the return of income under section 139(1) by estimating the cost of construction, he was not able to utilize the entire amount at the time of filing of the return and utilized the same subsequently, and therefore, benefit under section 54F cannot be denied to the assessee. In view of the above, we direct the Assessing Officer to examine that if the assessee has invested the amounts in the construction of house property as per time limit available to him under section 139(4), the benefit under section 54F should be granted to the assessee. 15. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order Pronounced in the open Court on this 28th day of April, 2017. - - TaxTMI - TMITax - In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
