9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 1197X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... served that the time u/s.139(4) was available up to 31-03-2014. The assessee opened a bank account under the designated Capital gain account scheme on 03-08-2013 and purchased a new property on 26-08-2013. It is evident that the assessee complied with the requirement of section 54B(2) seen in the light of the time limit as per section 139(4) of the Act. It is relevant to take note of the judgment of Hon ble Madras High court in the case of Venkata Dilip Kumar [ 2019 (11) TMI 416 - MADRAS HIGH COURT ] held that the requirement of depositing in the capital gain account scheme u/s.54(2) is directory. If the amount is utilized within the stipulated period of two/three years while depositing in the capital gain account scheme, there can be no de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s making written submissions that the time for filing of belated return u/s.139(4) was 31-03-2014 and not 31-03-2013, the Tribunal recalled its earlier order on 11-09-2019. That is how the instant appeals have come up for consideration once again before the Tribunal. ITA No.617/PUN/2018 - Uddhav K. Bankar, L/H of Late Smt. Tarabai K. Bankar : 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that a survey u/s.133A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called the Act ) was carried out in the case of M/s. Pharande Promoters Builders on 29-07-2013 in which it transpired that they had purchased a land at Plot No.725 and 731 located at Borhadewadi, Moshi on 12-10-2011 for a total consideration of ₹ 3,22,50,000/-. On perusal of the 7/12 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te. However, a brief recital of facts is considered necessary. The assessee sold agricultural land on 12-10-2011. Due date for filing return for the assessment year 2012-13 under consideration as per section 139(1) was 31-07-2012 and the date for filing belated return u/s.139(4) was 31-03-2014. It is apparent from the written submissions filed by the assessee at the time of recalling of the earlier ex parte order that the assessee opened a bank account under capital gain account scheme on 03-08-2013. New agricultural land was purchased on 26-08-2013. Dates of sale of old and purchase of new agricultural land are not in dispute. In the same way, no other factual detail is under challenge. There is further no quarrel that the assessee did off ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t later than the due date applicable in the case of the assessee for furnishing the return of income under sub-section (1) of section 139] in an account in any such bank . for the purchase of the new asset together with the amount so deposited shall be deemed to be the cost of the new asset. . On going through the interplay between sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 54B, it becomes evident that exemption u/s.54B(1) is subject to the assessee depositing the amount of unutilized capital gain in a designated bank account within the time provided u/s.139. 7. The authorities have interpreted the section 139 as section 139(1) and not 139(4) contrary to what has been laid down in several decisions including CIT VS. Jagriti Aggarwal (2011) 339 ITR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under Section 139 of the Act then the provision of Section 54(2) of the Act would not hit the assessee before it. It is not very clear in the above case whether the amounts were utilized before the assessee filed its return of income or not. 8. On going through the above extraction from the judgment of Hon ble jurisdictional High Court, it is clear that the Hon ble High court admitted the fact that the requirement of depositing before the date of furnishing the return u/s.139 is not to be restricted to the date specified u/s.139(1). However, the claim of the assessee in that case was not allowed because it was not clear whether the amounts were utilized before the assessee filed its return of income or not. 9. Reverting to the present case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ount scheme, there can be no denial of exemption u/s.54 because the substantial requirement of purchasing new property was satisfied. Coming back to the facts of the instant case, it is seen that section 54B(1) requires purchasing of new agricultural land within the period of two years from the date of sale of earlier agricultural land. The original agricultural land in this case was sold on 12-10-2011. New agricultural land was purchased on 26-08-2013, which is well within the given period of two years from the date of transfer. 11. Viewed from any angle, it is clear that the assessee complied with the conditions for availing exemption u/s.54B. I, therefore, set-aside the impugned order and direct to grant the benefit u/s.54B as claimed. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
