Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2007 (3) TMI 283

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... return u/s 139 then the assessee can file such return and there will be no need of rectification. Thus, the interpretation, which has been placed by the learned Gauhati High Court in the case of CIT v. Rajesh Kumar Jalan [ 2006 (8) TMI 126 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT] , is in accordance with the legislation intent of introducing sections 54(2) and 54F(4). It is true that the ITAT, Delhi in the case of Taranbir Singh Sawhney v. Dy. CIT [ 2005 (9) TMI 508 - ITAT DELHI] did not allow the deduction u/s 54F though the new asset was acquired on 1-12-1997 but the amount of capital gain was not deposited in the capital gain account by 30-6-1997 i.e., the due date of filing the return. However, the decision of the learned Gauhati High Court was not av .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... fied. It is not in dispute that this amount was neither utilized nor invested in the specified securities within the prescribed time. This being the position, no deduction under section 54F can be allowed to the assessee on this amount. The A/R's contention that ultimately the entire amount was utilized in the construction of new house and liberal interpretation should be given to the provisions is not acceptable. It is a settled law that when the statute prescribes a particular thing to be done in a particular manner the same has to be done in that manner only. In the name of liberal interpretation, the provisions cannot be circumvented. This is more so when the language of the statute is clear and unambiguous. In the present case, since t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Before dealing with the issue, it will be relevant to reproduce section 54F(4): "4. The amount of the net consideration which is not appropriated by the assessee towards the purchase of the new asset made within one year before the date on which the transfer of the original asset took place, or which is not utilized by him for the purchase or construction of the new asset before the date of furnishing the return of income under section 139, shall be deposited by him before furnishing such return (such deposit being made in any case not later than the due date applicable in the case of the assessee for furnishing the return of income under subsection (1) of section 139) in an account in any such bank or institution as may be specified in, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e following observations of the Gauhati High Court as mentioned at page 283:- "The Apex Court in State of Maharashtra v. Santosh Shankar Acharya [2000] 7 SCC 463 held that it is too well known a principle of construction of statutes that the Legislature engrafted every part of the statute for a purpose. The legislative intention is that every part of the statute should be given effect. The Legislature is deemed not to waste its words or to say anything in vain and a construction which attributes redundancy to the Legislature will not be accepted except for compelling reasons. The Apex Court in Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mill (P.) Ltd. [2003] 2 SCC 111, held that it is the basic principle of construction of statute that statuto .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... l be no need of rectification. Thus, the interpretation, which has been placed by the learned Gauhati High Court, is in accordance with the legislation intent of introducing sections 54(2) and 54F(4). 6.3 It is true that the ITAT, Delhi in the case of Taranbir Singh Sawhney v. Dy. CIT [2006] 5 SOT 417 did not allow the deduction under section 54F though the new asset was acquired on 1-12-1997 but the amount of capital gain was not deposited in the capital gain account by 30-6-1997 i.e., the due date of filing the return. However, the decision of the learned Gauhati High Court was not available to the learned Delhi Bench. We follow the decision of the Gauhati High Court and hold that the assessee is entitled to exemption of Rs. 2,10,833 un .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates