9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 1204X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itle the assessee from claiming the benefit under section 54F of the Act. The essence of the said provision is whether the assessee who received capital gains has invested in a residential house. Once it is demonstrated that the consideration received on transfer has been invested either in purchasing a residential house or in construction of a residential house even though the transactions are not complete in all respects and as required under the law, that would not disentitle the assessee from the said benefit. What is required to be seen is whether the assessee has invested the sale consideration proportionate to the deduction claimed u/s 54F of the Act in construction or purchase of new residential house within the period prescribed in the section. Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by Ld CIT(A) and restore the issue to the file of the AO for verifying the quantum of amount spent by the assessee before three years from the date of transfer of original asset and accordingly for examining the deduction claimed u/s 54F of the Act. - Decided in favour of assessee. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate for filing the return of income for asst. year 2013- 14 as per sec. 54F(4) of the Act. b) The construction has not been completed within 3 years from the date of transfer of original asset. Accordingly the AO rejected the claim of deduction u/s 54F of the Act. 6. The CIT(A) confirmed the order of the AO with the following observations :- "Ground 1,2,3 & 3.1 Claim: Deposit in the capital gain account should be on or before due date for filing of return u/s 139(4) and not u/s 139(1) - the exemption claimed u/s. 54F of the Act is allowable. Examination from Factual point of view: 9. The appellant has invested in a land of 8,305 sq. ft. for a consideration of ₹ 1.29 Crores. The AO has held that so called construction of the house there-on was claimed as an after-thought for winning exemption u/s. 54F of the Act. 10. In this respect the chronology of events is examined. I find that the appellant must have completed the house construction on or before 12/08/2015 since the original asset was sold on 13.8.2012. I find that the sanction plan was approved by BIAAPA on 24.06.2015. Normally the construction of even one floor takes at least 8 to 10 months. From the prepo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... applicable is the date for furnishing the return of income under sub-section (1) of section 139. There is no mention of section 139(4) in this section. 16. In this respect, Hon. Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Tarulata Shyarn v. CIT [1977) 108 ITR 345 (SC) has held that there is no scope for importing into the statute words which are not there. Such importation would be, not to construe, but to amend the statute. Even if there be a casus omissus, the defect can be remedied only by legislation and not by judicial interpretation. 17: Further, Hon. Supreme Court in the case of Keshavji Ravji & Co. v. CIT 119901 49 Taxman 87 (SC) has held that as long as there is no ambiguity in the statutory language, resort to any interpretative process to unfold the legislative intent becomes impermissible. 18. Similarly, Hon. Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. T.V. Sundaram Iyengar & Sons (P.) Ltd. 11975] 101 ITR 764 (SC) has held that if the language of the statute is clear and unambiguous, the Court cannot discard the plain meaning, even if it leads to an injustice. 19. The appellant has relied on the judgment of the Honourable Karnataka High Court in the case of FATIMA BAI (Karnata ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it must be interpreted in favour of the revenue. (3) The ratio in Sun Export case (supra) is not correct and all the decisions which took similar view as in Sun Export Case (supra) stands overruled. 23. 1 have examined the submissions made by the appellant. I find that in the judgements cited by the appellant various decisions of the Hon. Supreme Court of India have not been considered. 24. Therefore, by relying on the decision of the Constitution Bench of Hon. Supreme Court of India in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai Vs. M/s. Dilip Kumar and Company [Civil Appeal No. 3327 of 2007] the deduction u/s 54P is not allowed. 25. Therefore, the arguments of the appellant are not acceptable. The appellant has failed to deposit the required amount in the capital gains account within the prescribed time. Further, the appellant has also failed to construct a house within the prescribed time. Thus, both factually and legally the case lacks merit and the grounds are therefore, dismissed." 7. We heard the parties on this issue and perused the record. The first reason given by the tax authorities for rejecting the claim for deduction u/s 54F of the Act is that the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... those cases. Section 54F of the Act is a beneficial provision of promoting the construction of residential house. Therefore, the said provision has to be construed liberally for achieving the purpose for which it was incorporated in the statute. The intention of the Legislature was to encourage investments in the acquisition of a residential house and completion of construction or occupation is not the requirement of law. The words used in the section are 'purchased' or 'constructed'. For such purpose, the capital gain realized should have been invested in a residential house. The condition precedent for claiming benefit under the said provision is the capital gain realized from sale of capital asset should have been parted by the assessee and invested either in purchasing a residential house or in constructing a residential house. If after making the entire payment, merely because a registered sale deed had not been executed and registered in favour of the assessee before the period stipulated, he cannot be denied the benefit of section 54F of the Act. Similarly, if he has invested the money in construction of a residential house, merely because the construction w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction of the assessee is thus in conformity with the object and purpose of Section 54F of the Act. To say that the assessee is entitled for deduction in respect of capital gains arising from sale of only one long term capital asset and conversion thereof in residential property would in effect seriously limit the object and purpose of Section 54F of the Act. 12. To delineate further, an incidental situation may also crop up whether capital gains deduction with reference to Section 54F of the Act would apply with respect to a solitary transaction and not on whole of several different transactions of capital assets in the form of equity, mutual fund and so on. If the interpretation of 'any long term asset' as suggested by Revenue is read to mean deduction in respect of only one transaction of transfer is endorsed, it will seriously curtail the application of Section 54F of the Act. Such interpretation would lead to absurd results and requires to be shunned. Significantly, we also notice the use of broader expression 'any' long term asset in distinction to expression 'a' long term asset as used in Section 10(38) of the Act. Thus, the legislative intent when gathered from the distinc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
