9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 1481X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ply to provisions of section 54B (2) as well. Thus, we find merit in ground No. 1 raised by the assessee in appeal and the same is accepted. The assessee is eligible to claim exemption u/s. 54B in respect of investment made towards purchase of agriculture land within the time limit for filing return of income specified under section 139(4). Levy of interest u/s. 234B and 234C - HELD THAT:- Since, ground no. 1 raised by the assessee has been allowed and it has been contended that interest u/s. 234B and 234C has been levied in respect of disallowance of exemption u/s. 54B, we deem it appropriate to remit the issue back to the file of Assessing Officer to grant consequential relief to the assessee, in line with the relief granted to the assessee by us. - ITA No. 473/PUN/2015 - - - Dated:- 30-10-2017 - SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM For The Assessee : Shri Pramod Shingte For The Revenue : Dr. Vivek Aggarwal ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), Pune-6 dated 30.01.2015 f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s advance tax liability by assuming that Assessing Officer will not consider the legal claim. 5. Shri Pramod Shingte appearing on behalf of assessee submitted that assessee had filed its return of income for impugned assessment year on 30.03.2013 i.e. before expiry of time prescribed u/s. 139(4) of the Act and had claimed benefit of exemption u/s. 54B on the entire investment of ₹ 2,65,63,140/-. The assessee had purchased various pieces of agricultural land. Out of the total investment made, investment to the tune of ₹ 71,56,000/- was made towards purchase of following lands in August, 2012. i) Land at Kuruli purchased on 22.08.2012 ₹ 6,00,000/- ii) Land at Kuruli purchased on 22.08.2012 ₹ 48,40,000/- iii) Land at Vele purchased on 07.08.2012 ₹ 17,16,000/- Total ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the new asset is purchased or capital gain is invested in specified bank account before the due date for furnishing return of income under sub section (1) of Section 139 of the Act. The ld. DR in support of his submission placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Humayun Suleman Merchant Vs. CCIT (supra.) and the decision of Kerala High Court in the case of Dr. Xavier J. Pulikkal Vs. DCIT reported as 64 taxmann.com 457. The ld. DR submitted that the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court rejected assessee s claim of exemption u/s. 54F where the investment was made by the assessee after expiry of due date for filing return of income u/s. 139 (1) of the Act. 7. Controverting the submissions made on behalf of Department, the ld. AR for the assessee submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has modified the judgment of Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Dr. Xavier J. Pulikkal Vs. DCIT (supra.) and has restored the matter back to the file of Assessing Officer to consider the matter denovo. The ld. AR furnished copy of decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Dr. Xavier J. Pulikkal Vs. DC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sh the return for any previous year at any time before the expiry of one year from the end of the relevant assessment year or before the completion of the assessment whichever is earlier. Such being the situation, it is the case of the respondent/assessee that the respondent/assessee could fulfil the requirement under s. 54 of the IT Act for exemption of the capital gain from being charged to income-tax on the sale of property used for residence upto 30th March, 1998, inasmuch as the return of income-tax for the asst. yr. 1997-98 could be furnished before the expiry of one year from the end of the relevant assessment year or before the completion of the assessment whichever is earlier under sub-s. (4) of s. 139 of the IT Act, 1961. 10. The Hon'ble Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ms. Jagriti Aggarwal (supra.) while considering the issue, whether the assessee is eligible for claiming benefit of exemption u/s. 54, if capital gain amount is deposited/invested after due date of furnishing return of income u/s. 139(1) but before the due date of furnishing return of income u/s. 139(4) held : 10. Having heard learned counsel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... High Court in another case CIT Vs. Jagtar Singh Chawla reported as 33 taxmann.com 38 following the ratio laid down in the case of Rajesh Kumar Jalan (supra.) allowed assessee s claim of exemption u/s. 54F where the assessee paid substantial amount of sale consideration for residential house within extended period of filing return of income u/s. 139(4) of the Act. 12. In the case of Humayun Suleman Merchant Vs. CCIT (supra.), we find that the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has not disapproved the ratio laid down in Rajesh Kumar Jalan case. However, the assessee s claim of exemption u/s. 54F was rejected therein as the ratio laid down in Rajesh Kumar Jalan s case was not applicable on the facts and circumstances of that particular case. Relevant extract of the findings and observation of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court reads as under: ( v) Lastly and in the alternative, it is submitted by Mr. Chatterji, that as the entire amount has been paid to the developer/builder before the last date to file the return of Income under Section 139 of the Act, the exemption is available to the appellant under section 54F(4) of the Act. In support, the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Act. 13. In the present case, the assessee has claimed exemption u/s. 54B of the Act. We observe that the provision of sub section (2) of Section 54, provision of sub section (2) of section 54B and provisions of sub section (4) of Section 54F are perimeteria . The judgments on which the ld. AR has placed reliance are rendered with reference to claim of exemption u/s. 54/54F. Since provisions of sub section (2) of section 54 and 54B and (4) of section 54F are identical, therefore, ratio laid down by the various Hon'ble High Courts would apply to provisions of section 54B (2) as well. Thus, in the light of facts of the case and various decisions as discussed above, we find merit in ground No. 1 raised by the assessee in appeal and the same is accepted. The assessee is eligible to claim exemption u/s. 54B in respect of investment made towards purchase of agriculture land within the time limit for filing return of income specified under section 139(4). 14. In ground No. 2, the assessee has assailed levy of interest u/s. 234B and 234C of the Act. The levy of interest u/s. 234B and 234C is mandatory and consequential. Since, ground no. 1 raised ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
