9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 72X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). In the return of income, assessee has estimated the cost of construction, which is going to be incurred and claimed benefit under section 54F of the Act. The Assessing Officer asked the assessee to submit detailed note on the capital gain's income. In response to that, assessee submitted the following details:- "I state that I sold residential land of 560.83 Sq Yards at Madhavadhara, Visakhapatnam for an amount of Rs. 72,84 803 on 12-11-2009, further I claimed cost of indexation of Rs. 19,25,141 and arrived capital gains of Rs. 53,59,662. I submit that I own land of 1,228.16 Sq. Yards at Plot No.11 and 12 at Gantlam Village, Denkada Mandal, Vizianagaram Dt., which was receive ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s to how eligible for exemption of Rs.41,72,000/- and only of Rs. 2,05,395/- was spent upto the date of filing of the return. 3. The Assessing Officer further observed that as per section 54F(4) of the Act, the amount of net consideration, which is not appropriated by the assessee towards purchase of the new asset made within one year before the date, on which the transfer of the original asset took place, or which is not utilised by him for the purchase or construction of the new asset before the date of furnishing the return of income under section 139, shall be deposited by him before furnishing such return. But, the assessee has not invested the balance amount of Rs. 39,66,605/-, which was not appropriated towards the construction of n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection 54F by estimating the cost of construction. Though, assessee filed return of income under section 139(1), the time limit available for him to invest on the cost of construction of the building under section 139(4) of the Act. In support, he relied upon the following case-laws:- 1) CIT Vs. Rajesh Kumar Jalan [(2006) 286 ITR 274 (Gauhati)] 2) CIT Vs. Ms. Jagriti Aggarwal [(2011) 339 ITR 610] 3) Fathima Bai Vs. ITO [(2009) 32 DTR (Kar.) 243] 4) ITO Vs. Sapana Dimri [(2012) 31 CCH 107 (Del. - Trib.)] 5) Nipun Mehrotra Vs. ACIT [(2008) 113 (Bang.) 223] 8. On the other hand, Learned Departmental Representative has supported the orders passed by the authorities below. 9. We have heard both the sides, perused the material available on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unutilized portion of the capital gain as per time limit provided under section 139(4) of the Act. 12. In the case of Ms. Jagriti Aggarwal (supra), the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court held that sub-section (4) of section 139 is, in fact, a proviso to sub-sec (1) of section 139 provides for extension in period of due date for filing the return in certain circumstances and, therefore, exemption under section 54 was allowable where the assessee had purchased new property before extended due date of filing of return as per section 139(4) and filed return within such extended time. 13. In the case of Fathima Bai (supra) the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court held that assessee having utilized the entire capital gains by purchasing a hous ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
