Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2014 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (1) TMI 603 - AT - Income TaxCost of improvement - Held that:- The original construction was made in 1991-92, therefore, the assessee would have spent considerable amount during the assessment year 2006-07 atleast for maintenance of the building, if not for improvement - The Tribunal is of the considered opinion that this amount of Rs.3.5 lakhs shall be taken as cost of improvement - When the assessee borrowed loan and it was used for improvement or maintenance of the building it cannot be said that the assessee could not have used the funds merely because housing loan was not borrowed - The assessee could have invested the funds due to passage of time after the construction, rejecting the claim of the assessee in toto is not justified - Decided in favour of assessee. Undisclosed sales consideration - Held that:- The assessee admitted the receipt of Rs.9 lakhs over and above the sale consideration disclosed in the sale deed - The assessing officer has also found that this Rs.9 lakhs was credited in the account of the assessee's wife Smt. K.S. Beena - Since the amount was received by cheque and it was credited in the name of the assessee's wife Smt. K.S. Beena and the same was also admitted by the assessee by a letter dated 18-09-2009, the CIT(A) was justified in making addition - Decided against assessee. Exemption u/s 54EC - Held that:- Following Jagriti Agarwal [2011 (10) TMI 279 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] - After referring to sub clause (2) of section 54 and section 139(1) of the Act, the Punjab & Haryana High Court found that sub section 139(4) provides the extended period of limitation for filing of return of income which is an exception to sub section (1) of section 139 - Due date for furnishing of return of income as per section 139(1) is subject to extended period provided u/s 139(4) of the Act - In view of section 54 of the Act it is obvious that if the assessee could not utilize the amount within one year either for purchase of a new asset or for construction of a new asset, the capital gain shall be deposited in the appropriate account before the due date for filing of return of income u/s 139(1). Following Prakash Nath Khanna & Ors vs CIT & another [2004 (2) TMI 3 - SUPREME Court] - While interpreting section 139(1), 139(2) and 139(4) of the Act, the Apex Court found that due date certainly mean due date as prescribed in sub section (1) of section 139 -The time within which the return is to be furnished is indicated only in sub-section (1) of section 139 and not in sub-section (4) of section 139 - Even if a return is filed in terms of sub-section (4) of section 139 that would not dilute the infraction in not furnishing the return in due time as prescribed under sub-section (1) of section 139 - Otherwise, the use of the expression "in due time" would lose its relevance and it cannot be said that the said expression was used without any purpose - This judgment of the Apex Court was not brought to the notice of the CIT(A) as well as the assessing officer – The issue was restored for fresh adjudication.
|