9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 154X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rty. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the assessee has failed to satisfy conditions prescribed u/s. 54 of the Act, for claiming benefit of exemption u/s. 54 for remaining amount and thus, we are of the considered view that there is no error in the reasons given by the AO and the CIT(A) to reject the benefit of exemption for balance amount and thus, we are inclined to uphold the findings of the CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal filed by the assessee. - ITA No. 1729/Chny/2019 - - - Dated:- 11-1-2023 - SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH , HON BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA , HON BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For the Appellant : N. Arjunraj , CA for S. Sridhar , Adv. For the Respondents : AR. V. Sreenivasan , Addl. CIT ORDER Per G. Manjunatha, Accountant Member This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-9, Chennai, dated 16.04.2019 and pertains to assessment year 2015-16. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 9, Chennai dated 16.04.2019 in ITA No. 15/CIT(A)-9/2017-18 for the above mentioned Assessment Year is cont ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Financial Year relevant to the AY 2015-16, the assessee has sold land building situated at Velan Nagar, Valasaravakkam, Chennai, for a sale consideration of Rs. 1,51,00,000/- vide registration document No. 512/2015 dated 29.01.2015. The assessee has computed long term capital gains from the sale of land building at Rs. 89,99,443/- and claimed exemption u/s. 54 of the Act, for purchase of residential house property at Plot No. A19 A20, Govindan Nagar, 3rd Cross, Palavakkam, Chennai, for an amount of Rs. 90 lakhs. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that the assessee has purchased new house property on 29.04.2015 for a consideration of Rs. 45 lakhs and also entered into a construction agreement with M/s. Keshthana Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., and paid advance of Rs. 6 lakhs on 22.05.2017. Therefore, the AO opined that the assessee has not utilized full amount of capital gains derived from sale of original asset for acquiring new asset and thus, re-computed long term capital gains and also exemption u/s. 54 of the Act, and allowed exemption u/s. 54 of the Act, at Rs. 48,59,420/- as against total exemption claimed by the assessee at Rs. 90 lakhs. 4. B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ax. There is no presumption as to a tax. Nothing is to be read in, nothing is to be implied. One can only look fairly at the language used. Once it is shown that the case of assessee comes within the letter of the law the must be taxed, however great the hardship may appear to the judicial mind to be. When the language of the section is clear and unambiguous, 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 legislature and not by judicial interpretation As per the specific provisions of Section 54(2), it is categorically stated that the amount of capital gain which is not appropriated ought to be deposited in the Capital Gain Account Scheme. Therefore, as per the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case cited above of statutes, when the language of the section is very clear and unambiguous, the same ought to be strictly interpreted. Therefore, it is held that the A.O. has rightly held that the appellant has failed to comply with the specific provisions of sections of 54(2) and t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ouse property site on 29.04.2015 and amount spent for construction of house thereon. The AO has allowed proportionate deduction towards exemption claimed u/s. 54 of the Act, to the extent of Rs. 48,59,420/- being consideration paid for purchase of property and stamp registration fees. However, denied exemption for remaining amount on the ground that the assessee has violated provisions of Sec. 54(2) of the Act, in not depositing unutilized amount of capital gains in 'Capital Gain Account Scheme'. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the reasons given by the AO in light of arguments advanced by the Ld. AR and we ourselves do not subscribe to the reasons given by the AR for simple reason that in order to get the benefit of exemption u/s. 54 of the Act, the assessee should invest full amount of capital gains for purchase of new residential house property before one year from the date of sale of original asset or within three years from the date of sale of original asset, in case of construction. In case, the assessee is not able to spend full amount of capital gains on or before due date of furnishing of return of income u/s. 139(1) of the Act or u/s. 139(4) of the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... corded categorical findings that the assessee has utilized full amount of capital gains within three years from the date of sale of original asset and also complied with provisions of Sec. 54 of the Act, and under those facts, it was held that when the assessee has satisfied all conditions, further not depositing unutilized amount in 'Capital Gain Account Scheme', benefit of exemption, cannot be denied. In this case, the assessee could not furnish any evidences with regard to completion of construction of house within three years from the date of sale of original asset and also any other evidences to prove that amount has been spent for construction of house property, except filing a statement referring certain payments to M/s. Keshthana Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., and claimed that said payments are for construction of house property. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the assessee has failed to satisfy conditions prescribed u/s. 54 of the Act, for claiming benefit of exemption u/s. 54 of the Act, for remaining amount and thus, we are of the considered view that there is no error in the reasons given by the AO and the Ld. CIT(A) to reject the benefit of exemption f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
