Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2016 (10) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (10) TMI 180 - HC - Income TaxGrant of extension of time to comply with the requirements of Section 54-F - year in which such deduction is claimed - failure to demonstrate compliance of Section 119 (2)(c)(ii) - Held that:- The submission is based on the erroneous presumption that the words “year in which such deduction is claimed” mean the year in which the assessee seeks and is granted extension. The words in fact mean the year in which the assessee is eligible to tax, which in the case before us, is the Assessment Year 2012-13 as the sale was on 28.06.2011. A view to the contrary would entitle an assessee to postpone the payment of capital gain tax indefinitely by making the application at any time and even repeatedly, if required. The words mean the year in which the assessee may claim the benefit and not the year in which he chooses to claim the same. The relaxation in terms of Section 119 (2) (c) can be sought by the assessee at the time of claiming deduction and such claim can be made only within the time period, as prescribed under the Act for making such claim. There is nothing in Section 119 (2) of the Act which gives any power to the Board to extend the time to claim the deduction. While applying the afore principle, to the facts of the present case, the petitioner could have applied for relaxation for claiming the benefit under Section 54-F only within the time prescribed under that Section and that too, if before making such claim, he had complied with the required conditions to claim such deduction. That not being there in the present case, we are of the opinion that the Board rightly rejected the petitioner's application. Learned counsel for the Revenue has stated that the petitioner is a Hindu Undivided Family, whereas the revenue record appended with the petition shows that the owner of the land in question is a Karta of the Hindu Undivided Family in his individual capacity. In view of what we have held above, even if we assume the owner of the land to be the petitioner Hindu Undivided Family, no relief can be granted. On the issue of the petitioner having two houses, Mr. Mittal, learned counsel for the petitioner has explained that the petitioner does not own any house as alleged by the Revenue. However, we express no opinion on the same. - Decided against assessee.
|