Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2011 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (6) TMI 778 - ITAT DELHIExemption u/s 54F - Bank manager wrongly deposited the assessee's investment of the long term capital gain in the flexi deposit scheme instead of capital gain scheme. Assessee pleaded for claiming the exemption u/s 54F HELD THAT:- The assessee was always under the bonafide belief that the amount has been invested in the capital gain scheme account only. The copy of letter written by the assessee to the branch manager for forwarding the cheques shows that the intention of the assessee was to invest in capital gain scheme account. The request made to the bank manager was to open a capital gain scheme account. This intention of assessee was always to reinvest in the scheme which qualify for the exception of capital gain tax. The ITAT, Bangalore relying on the case of NIPUN MEHROTRA. VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 14 (2), BANGALORE. [2007 (3) TMI 283 - ITAT BANGALORE-B] and judgements of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VERSUS RAJESH KUMAR JALAN. [2006 (8) TMI 126 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT] and FATHIMA BAI VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER [2008 (10) TMI 563 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT], held that assessee was entitled to exemption of the entire investment upto the date of filing the return u/s 139(4) of the Act. The assessee’s case is squarely covered by the above judgements, therefore, this ground of assessee’s appeal is allowed. Benefit of the cost incurred for developing the Agricultural Land - Assesee submitted that such amount was received in lieu of residual things available on the land sold - Therefore, no addition should be made - HELD THAT:- Assessee has also not furnished reliable evidence in respect of the claim of compensation on certain things, therefore such claim is unsustainable claim. In absence of any evidence and with the fact that the amount was received at and around the time of sale of the land from the same person, we are of the view that this was the sale consideration received towards the sale of the land. The surrounding circumstances also show that this amount received towards the sale consideration of land. For holding so, we get the support from the decision of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of DINESH KUMAR MITTAL VERSUS INCOME-TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS [1991 (3) TMI 78 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT],where the Hon'ble High Court has held that there is no rule of law to the effect that the value determined for the purpose of stamp duty is the actual consideration passing between the parties to a sale. The actual consideration may be more or may be less. What is the actual consideration that passed between the parties is a question of fact to be determined in each case, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. As we have stated above, the facts and circumstances of the case show that the amount in question was received towards the sale consideration in addition to the amount declared in the sale deed. The revenue records show that the rice was being grown in 2006 when the sale was negotiated. Therefore, a deduction regarding such amount shall be allowed towards the compensation for the standing crops at the land sold out. In the interest of justice and equity, we hold that the assessee shall be at liberty to claim the benefit of the cost incurred for developing the agricultural land by way of making Dera, hand-pump, pucca drains, flooring, fencing and compensation for labourers, etc., if necessary evidences are filed before the assessing authority. Interest u/s 234B - CIT(A) upholded the levy of interest u/s 243B - HELD THAT:- We hold that levying of interest is mandatory in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS ANJUM MH GHASWALA AND OTHERS [2001 (10) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT], Therefore, the same stands dismissed.
|