9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 1058X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ined the remit the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer to quantify the amount of exemption u/s 54 of the Act. The assessee is directed to prove the investment in residential building as prescribed u/s 54 of the Act before the due date of filing of the return u/s 139(4). Accordingly, this issue is remitted for the limited purpose of quantifying the amount of deduction to the file of the A.O. after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes. - ITA No.2203/Bang/2019 - - - Dated:- 27-1-2020 - Shri Chandra Poojari, Accountant Member For the Appellant : Sri.Ravi Shankar, Advocate For the Respondent : Sri.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Council for DR ORDER This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A), dated 31.12.2014. The relevant assessment year is 2012-2013. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds:- 1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals] passed under Section 251(1) of the Act in so far as it is against the Appellant is opp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6. The learned Assessing Officer is not justified in law in charging the interest under section 234B of the Act and further the calculation of interest under section 234B of the Act is not in accordance with law since the rate, method of calculation, quantum is not discernable from the order of assessment on the facts and circumstance of the case. 7. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, substitute and delete any or all of the grounds of appeal urged above. 8. For the above and other grounds to be urged during the hearing of the appeal the Appellant prays that the appeal be allowed in the interest of equity and justice. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, who received sale consideration of ₹ 75,00,000 on transfer of an immovable property consisting of a residential house, during the previous year relevant to the assessment year 2012-2013. In the return of income filed for the assessment year 2012-2013 on 21.07.2012, the assessee admitted taxable total income of ₹ 3,64,610, after claiming deduction of ₹ 56,30,681 u/s 54 of the Act, on the clai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of sub see (1) the amount, if any, already utilised by the assessee for the purchase or construction of the new asset together with the amount so deposited shall be deemed to be the cost of the new asset. As there is no ambiguity in the provisions given in the statue the case laws relied on by the appellant cannot be followed since they are case specific and facts are not similar to that of the appellants case. Therefore, I hereby uphold the order of the AO dismissing the grounds raised by the appellant. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. Before me, the learned AR strongly placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. K.Ramachandra Rao [(2015) 230 taxmann 334 (Kar.)]. In the aforesaid case, the assessee has not deposited the unutilized net consideration in his specified bank account as required u/s 54F of the Act. The assessee had, however, invested the net consideration in construction of residential house within the period stipulated u/s 54F(1) of the Act. Hon ble Karnataka High Court had decided whether the assessee could be given t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se of Mathuram Agrawal v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1999) 8 SCC 667, wherein it was held as under:- The intention of the Legislature in a taxation statute is to be gathered from the language of the provisions particularly where the language is plain and unambiguous. In a taxing Act it is not possible to assume any intention or governing purpose of the statute more than what is stated in the plain language. It is not the economic results sought to be- obtained by making the provision which is relevant in interpreting a fiscal statute. Equally impermissible is an interpretation which does not follow from the plain. unambiguous language of the statute. Words cannot be added to or substituted so as to give a meaning to the statute which will serve the spirit and intention of. the Legislature ..... (emphasis supplied) 6.1 He further relied on another judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Thana Electricity (206 ITR 727) had observed as under:- If the provision of a taxing statute can be reasonably interpreted in two ways, that interpretation which is favourable to the assessee has got to be acce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ears from the date of transfer. The assessee should be given the benefit of deduction under section 54F and cannot be denied the benefit for the reason that he had not complied with the requirements of section 54(2). Thus in effect the assessee would be entitled to deduction under section 54F for a sum utilized for construction of a residential house within this period specified in section 54F(1). The Assessing Officer is accordingly directed to allow deduction under section 54F. . 7.2 In my opinion, the judgment relied on by the learned DR in the case of Prof.P.N.Shetty (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case, and hence, it was not considered. Regarding the judgment of the Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Humayun Suleman Merchant v. The CCIT, Mumbai Anr. (supra), cannot be applied. The said judgment is not considered in view of the judgment on similar facts in the case of K.Ramachandra Rao (supra), which is very much binding on the issue. As regards the ambiguity in statute, the learned DR have taken help of the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Import) v. D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ace such facts before the Assessing Officer for consideration. However, Assessing Officer while applying the provisions of law to facts of a case without interdependent on facts of the other case has to consider the same. With these modifications, we dispose of the appeal directing the Assessing Officer to dispose of the matter in the light of the above observations. 7.4 In my opinion, the assessee could make investment in construction of new building within three years from the date of transfer of the asset for claiming deduction u/s 54 of the Act. Section 54 of the Act are beneficiary and are to be considered liberally. In view of the above discussion, I am inclined the remit the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer to quantify the amount of exemption u/s 54 of the Act. The assessee is directed to prove the investment in residential building as prescribed u/s 54 of the Act before the due date of filing of the return u/s 139(4) of the Act. Accordingly, this issue is remitted for the limited purpose of quantifying the amount of deduction to the file of the A.O. after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
