9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 1025X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aking a disallowance of claim made by the assessee u/s 54F of the Act. 2. That the learned CIT(Appeals) having found that the assessee has paid a sum of Rs. 50,36,422/- before the due date of submission of the income tax return to the builder towards purchase of residential flat, ought to have directed the Assessing Officer to allow exemption u/s 54F of the Act in respect of the payment so made. 3. That the learned CIT(Appeals) has erred in rejecting the bonafide submission of the assessee that majority of the payment stood paid before the due date of filing return u/s 139(4) of the Act and the learned CIT(Appeals) ought not to have drawn any adverse inference against the assessee only on the ground that the assessee had not deposited t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... section 54F in respect of the payment made for purchase of the flat beyond the due date of the filing of the return of income i.e. 31/03/2012. The grounds of the assessee are connected with single issue of deduction under section 54F of the Act and, thus all the grounds are adjudicated in consolidated manner. 4. The brief facts qua the issue in dispute are that the Assessing Officer noticed sale of plot of land located at Gurgaon, (which was held jointly with her husband) for a total sale consideration of Rs. 1,95,00,000/-. After indexation of the cost of the acquisition, the capital gain was computed at Rs. 1,77,19,468/- and the share of the assessee of the capital gain was worked out to Rs. 88,59,734/-. During the year, the assessee in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The second argument of the assessee was that the provisions of the section 54F of the Act being beneficial provisions for promoting construction of the residential house, the due date for filing of return of income should be considered as per section 139(4) of the Act, i.e., belated return and payment made till that due date i.e. 31/03/2014 should have been allowed for deduction under section 54F of the Act. In support of this argument before the learned CIT(A), the assessee relied on decisions of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Rohtak Vs. Jagtar Singh Chawala and decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs K. Ramchandra Rao. The assessee also relied on the CBDT Circular No. 471 dated 15/10/1986 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e relied on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shankar Lal Saini in Income- Tax Appeal No. 153 of 2017. The Ld. counsel also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CIT, Bangalore Vs. K Ramchandra Rao in IT Appeal No. 494 in 495 of 2013 and 46 and 47 of 2014. The Ld. counsel also relied on the decision of the Tribunal Mumbai bench in case of Kishore H Galaiya Vs. ITO in ITA No. 7326/Mum/2010. 8. On the contrary, the Ld. DR relied on the order of the lower authorities. 9. We have heard the rival submission of the parties and perused the relevant material on record, including the paper book containing pages 1 to 7 filed by the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lity of deduction under section 54F of the Act investment in purchase of the new asset must be made within one year of transfer of the original asset and if the assessee is unable to invest in purchase of the new asset before filing of return of income, the amount shall be deposited in banks in specified capital gains scheme account, before due date of the filing in terms of section 139(1) of the Act. 12. In the instant case, the dispute is regarding the amount of payment made for purchase of the residential flat (new asset) before the due date of the filing of return of income. The contention of the assessee is that the due date of the filing of the return of income should be reckoned as under section 139(4) of the Act, whereas according ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amount is undisputedly allowable for considering deduction under section 54F of the Act. 15. Regarding the payment made by the assessee before 31/03/2014, Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan in the case of Shankar Lal Saini (supra) held that, where assessee, an individual deposited unutilized sale consideration in capital gains scheme within the due date of filing of belated tax return under section 139(4), the capital gains relief under section 54F of the Act would be allowable. In the case of K. Ramachandra Rao (supra), the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court held that assessee having invested entire sale consideration in construction of residential house within three years from the date of the transfer, he could not be denied exemption under sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
