9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (3) TMI 283X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acts and other points as discussed above, it is also to be pointed out here that out of the total net consideration of Rs. 1,10,833 from sale of shares, the assessee has stated that he has invested Rs. 9 lakhs between 24-2-2000 and 2-6-2000. Further, it is seen that he has paid Rs. 4 lakhs on 14-9-2000 to M/s. Adarsh Developers for the proposed flat. In this regard as per the provisions of capital gains account scheme, the assessee should have invested Rs. 2,10,833 in the capital gains account scheme before the due date for filing the return of income for the assessment year 2000-01, i.e., before 31-7-2000." 3. The learned CIT(A) has confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer after observing as under:- "As regards the denial of exempti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and March, 2001. It was, therefore, argued that the cost of the new asset is more than the capital gain chargeable and hence, the assessee should have been allowed the entire exemption. 5. The learned DR stated that the assessee has not placed any evidence to suggest that the sale consideration received from the sale of shares was utilized for the purchase of new asset, as the sum of Rs. 22 lakhs was paid before the shares were sold. Hence, the investment of Rs. 22 lakhs cannot be considered for the purposes of allowing exemption under section 54F. The learned DR relied on the decision of Nagpur Bench in the case of Smt. Shashikala Rajkumar Kabra v. ITO [1999] 64 TTJ 754 in support of the proposition that the assessee has to utilize the sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny sub-section of section 139. Hence, one cannot interpret that section 139 mentioned should be read as section 139(1). Similar language is appearing in section 54(2) of the Income-tax Act. 6.1 The learned Gauhati High Court in the case of CIT v. Rajesh Kumar Jalan [2006] 286 ITR 274 has held that section 139 mentioned will not only include section 139(1) but will also include all sub-sections of section 139. In the instant case, it is not disputed that sale consideration has been utilised before the date of filing of the return under section 139(4). The learned Gauhati High Court, while interpreting section 54(2) and holding section 139 mentioned therein will include all sub-sections, have taken into account the judgments of the Apex Cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e language of the provision is plain and unambiguous. In other words statutory enactments must ordinarily be construed according to its plain meaning and no words shall be added, altered or modified unless it is plainly necessary to do so to prevent a provision from being unintelligible, absurd, unreasonable, unworkable or totally irreconcilable with the rest of the statute.'" 6.2 Section 54(2) was substituted by the Finance Act, 1987. The scope and effect of amendments were elaborated vide Circular No. 495, dated 22-10-1987. Sections 54(2) and 54F(4) were introduced to dispense with rectification of assessments in case the taxpayer fails to acquire the corresponding new asset. Hence, if the new asset is acquired before the date of filing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
