9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 1163X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted. Revenue cannot pursue this appeal after implementing order passed in the writ petition. However, we take note of the argument of Mr. Prabhu Mukunth Arunkumar, learned standing counsel for the appellant with regard to the legal issue, which has been decided by Writ Court by following the decision in K.Ramachandra Rao [ 2015 (4) TMI 620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] . On that issue, we are of the primafacie view that finding rendered in Humayun Suleman Merchant, appears to reflect the correct position of law. - W.A.No.414 of 2020 and C.M.P.No.6477 of 2020 - - - Dated:- 15-10-2020 - THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM And THE HONOURABLE Mrs. JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN For the Appellants : Mr.Prabhu Mukunth Arunkumar Standing counsel For the Respondent : Mr.A.Abdul Ravoof JUDGMENT [ Judgment of the Court was delivered by T. S. SIVAGNANAM , J. ] This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order passed in W.P.No.16249 of 2018 dated 05.11.2019. The said Writ Petition was filed by the respondent herein praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the order passed by the 1st appellant dated 08.03.2018, in a proceedings under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the said account. If the intention is not to retain cash, but to invest in construction, or any purchase of the property and if such investment is made within the period stipulated, then, Section 54F(4) is not at all attracted. Therefore, the contention that the assessee has not deposited the amount in the bank, as stipulated and therefore, he is not entitled to the benefit, even though he has invested the money in construction is also not correct. 5. The assessee in the Writ Petition further contended that the requirement to deposit under capital gains deposit scheme arises only when assessee claims exemption under Section 54 of the Act without paying tax on the amount. Further, the assessee's tax payment has been paid prior to raising the claim for exemption under Section 54 of the Act, hence what is sought for revision under Section 264 of the Act is only a refund and return of the excess amounts, which were already paid towards Income Tax during the assessment year 2014-2015. 6. The revenue resisted the prayer sought for in the Writ Petition by contending that Section 54F(2) of the Act is very clear and is an exemption provision and there cannot be any deviation o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nto consideration the decision of K.Ramachandra Rao and allowed the Writ Petition and remanded back the matter to the 2nd appellant to pass fresh order by considering the issue as to whether the disputed amount, claimed by the assessee as deduction, has been utilised by the assessee towards additional construction within a time limit prescribed under Section 54(1) of the Act. 11. The Revenue is on appeal before us contending that there are two sub-sections to Section 54 and both sub-sections lay down mandatory requirements for the purpose of enjoying exemption from tax on capital gains. Therefore, to state that Sub-Section (1) as mandatory and Sub-Section (2) as directory, is incorrect interpretation. Further, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs Vs. Dilip Kumar reported in 2018 SCC Online SC 747 to emphasis the point exemption notification should be interpreted strictly. 12. Further, Revenue places reliance on the decision in the case of Humayun Suleman Merchant V. CIT reported in [2016] 73 Taxmann.com 2 (Bombay) wherein it has been held that where the assessee had filed return of income and entire a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Act. The aforesaid aspect it appears was not noticed by the Karnataka High Court. In any case, the entire basis of the decision of the Karnataka High Court in K. Ramachandra Rao's case (supra) is the intent of the parties. In interpreting a fiscal statute one must have regard to the strict letter of law and intent can never override the plain and unambiguous letter of the law. It is true that normally while construing an all India Statute like the Income Tax Act, we would not easily depart from a view taken by another High Court on an issue arising for our consideration. This on consideration of certainty and consistency in law. However, the view of the other High Courts are not binding upon us unlike a decision of the Apex Court or of Larger or a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Thus if on an examination of the decisions of the other High Court we are unable to accept the same, we are not bound to follow/accept the interpretation of the other High Courts leading to a particular conclusion. In this case we find that the decision of the Karnataka High Court in K. Ramachandra Rao's case (supra) was rendered sub-silentio i.e. no argument was made with regard to the requireme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore, for all purposes the appeal was properly filed only on 02.03.2020. Much prior to that, the 1st appellant has passed giving effect to order dated 20.02.2020 granting relief to the respondent. 17. The argument of Mr.Prabhu Mukunth Arunkumar, learned counsel for the appellants / revenue is that in the event, revenue succeeds in this appeal, that order can always be rectified and fresh order can be passed. 18. We find from the order passed by the 1st appellant dated 20.02.2020 that it has not been passed without prejudice to the rights of the department in pursuing the Writ Appeal against the order in the writ petition. In fact, the 1st appellant records in the order that taking cognizance of the direction issued by the High Court, assessee was heard and in pursuant to the Court's decision, the additional cost of construction incurred by the assessee for claiming deduction under Section 54 of the Act was allowed and then, relief has been granted. 19. Therefore in our considered view, the revenue cannot pursue this appeal after implementing order passed in the writ petition. However, we take note of the argument of Mr. Mr.Prabhu Mukunth Arunkumar, learned standing cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
