9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 1318X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... scheme. The time stipulated for such deposit is qua Section 139(1) of the Act. Hence, the suggestion on behalf of the assessee for eligibility of deposits subsequent to expiry of time limit under s.139(1) of the Act [expressly provided in the Act] is not aligned with and militates against the plain provisions of law codified in Section 54F(4) of the Act. The mandate of Section 54F(4) of the Act being crystal clear, it is quite difficult to depart therefrom. While holding so, we also refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Dilipkumar & Co. [2018 (7) TMI 1826 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] requiring strict construction of beneficial provision. In the absence of any ambiguity in the exemption provision for elig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Revenue authorities in denying deduction under s.54F of the Act amounting to ₹ 2,67,18,560/-. 3. Briefly stated, the assessee, an individual filed its return of income for AY 2013-14 belatedly under s.139(4) of the Act on 31.03.2014 declaring a total income of ₹ 6,996/- therein. The return filed was subjected to scrutiny assessment. In the course of the scrutiny assessment, the AO noticed that the assessee has sold certain urban agricultural land at Gota, Ahmedabad at a sale consideration of ₹ 3,50,00,000/- and after reducing index cost of acquisition of ₹ 82,81,440/- declared long term capital gains at ₹ 2,67,18,560/-. Against the long term capital gains so earned, the assessee claimed exemption unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... due date under s.139(1) of the Act should be borne in mind and deposit in the later period within the due date under s.139(4) of the Act should be taken as sufficient compliance of Section 54F of the Act by granting liberal construction to the beneficial provision. 3.2 The AO however did not pay any heed to such arguments and held that Section 54F(4) of the Act requires that such deposit in capital gain account scheme cannot be made later than due date applicable to the assessee for furnishing the return of income under s.139(1) of the Act. The AO accordingly declined to grant exemption of ₹ 2,67,18,560/- claimed under s.54F of the Act on the ground that belated deposits in the scheme is not in terms with the provisions of the Act. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oned for the purpose of eligibility of deduction under s.54F of the Act. The learned AR for the assessee relied upon the decision of the co-ordinate bench in Sunayana Devi vs. ITO ITA No. 996/Kol/2013 order dated 13.09.2017 and Mrs. Seema Sabharwal vs. ITO ITA No. 272/Chd/2017 order dated 05.02.2018 for this purpose. 8. The learned DR, on the other hand, relied upon the Revenue authorities. 9. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. The central controversy in the instant case is towards allowability of deduction under s.54F of the Act having regard to the deposits made in the designated capital gain account scheme within the extended due date under s.139(4) of the Act. 9.1 The Revenue seeks to deny the deduction on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... purchase or construction of the new asset together with the amount so deposited shall be deemed to be the cost of the new asset: Provided that if the amount deposited under this sub-section is not utilised wholly or partly for the purchase or construction of the new asset within the period specified in sub-section (1), then,- ( i) the amount by which- (a) the amount of capital gain arising from the transfer of the original asset not charged under section 45 on the basis of the cost of the new asset as provided in clause (a) or, as the case may be, clause (b) of sub-section (1), exceeds (b) the amount that would not have been so charged had the amount actually utilised by the assessee for the purchase or construction o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act with reference to second limb i.e. purchase etc. of new asset, while on the other hand, the time limit was under s.139(1) of the Act has been specified for deposit in capital gain account scheme. Thus, when viewed, the distinction between the two different forms of expression of time limit can yield different results. While Section 139 used with reference to purchase of new asset is possibly open to varied interpretation i.e. time limit under s. 139(1) of the Act as well as extended time under s.139(4) of the Act, the time limit provided for deposit in scheme, on the other hand, has been categorically provided to be as per Section 139(1) of the Act without any ambiguity. There is presumption that words are used in an act of Parliament, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
