TMI Blog2011 (6) TMI 778X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 008 (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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Income-tax Act, 1961. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of ₹ 45,36,000/- made by the Assessing Officer representing sale of crops and temporary structure to store the crops standing on the agricultural land sold to M.s Sarv Sanjhi Construction (P) Ltd. B-47, Connaught Place, New Delhi, assessed by the AO, under the head 'Income from other sources' without any justification for the same. Without prejudice to the said contention, the sale should have been assessed under the head 'Agricultural income' after allowing the expenditure incurred in cultivating the said crops. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the levy of interest u/s 234B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 which is unjustified and illegal. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or modify any of the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing of the appeal. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and during the relevant financial year, he has sold agricultural land and a residential house located at Karnal. He has declared the sale consideration of ₹ 2.16 crores for the agricultural land and ₹ 8. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee on 30.3.2008 and the sale deed was executed on 23.04.2008. This fact is evident from page 8 of the sale deed placed at page 43 of the paper book. The balance amount was also invested prior to the time permissible for filing return u/s 139 of the Income-tax Act. He pleaded that for claiming the exemption u/s 54F, the assessee was required to deposit the amount of capital gain either in the capital gain account scheme or invest in the new house before the due date of filing of return of income within the period prescribed under section 139. In this case, the due date by which the return could be filed u/s 139(4) was 31.3.2009 while the assessee has invested whole of the amount by 23.04.2008. Therefore, the assessee is entitled for the benefit of claim of exemption u/s 54F of Income-tax Act, for which he relied on the following decisions :- (i) Fatima Bai vs. ITO (2009) 32 DTR (Kar.) 243; and (ii) CIT vs. Rajesh Kumar Jalan, 286 ITR 274 (Gau.) He also relied on the decision of ITAT in the case of P.R. Kulkarni Sons (HUF) vs. ACIT (2011) 49 DTR (Bang.)(Tri.) 442 and Abdul Bashar Siddiqui vs. ITO, ITA No.3628/Del/2009 (Delhi Tribunal). The intention of the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the purpose of the Act may be given effect to and both the provisions may be allowed to operate without rendering wither of them otiose. Finally he submitted that in the case of Rajesh Kumar Jalan which was relied by the assessee, it is held that 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 same. In view of the above, it is respectfully submitted that in order to make the provisions of section 54F sensible, workable and rational, a harmonious reading of both the limbs of sub-section (4) is necessary. That is section 139 that appear in the first limb of the section 54F(4) should read in context of due date as per section 139(1) mentioned in the second limb. In other words, section 139 mentioned in the first limb of section 54F(4) would impliedly mean only the return of income filed in the normal course u/s 139(1) in order to be consonant with the time limit provided in the second limb for depositing the net sale consideration be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e did not file the return within the extended due date, but filed the return on 27th Feb., 2000. However, the assessee had utilised the entire capital gains by purchase of a house property within the stipulated period of s. 54(2) i.e., before the extended due date for return under s. 139. The assessee technically may have defaulted in not filing the return under s. 139(4). But, however, utilised the capital gains for purchase of property before the extended due date under s. 139(4). The contention of the Revenue that the deposit in the scheme should have been made before the initial due date and not the extended due date is an untenable contention.-CIT vs. Rajesh Kumar Jalan (2006) 206 CTR (Gau) 361 :(2006) 286 ITR 274 (Gau) concurred with. In the assessee s case, the amount has been invested prior to the due date by which the return could be filed u/s 139 of the Act. A similar view has also been held in the case of CIT vs. Rajesh Kumar Jalan, cited supra, by the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held as under :- Interpretation of statutes-Beneficial provision-Purposive construction-In construing beneficial enactment, the view ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... und of assessee s appeal is allowed. 8. In the ground no.3, the issue raised is regarding the addition of ₹ 45,36,000/-. 9. On this issue, the learned AR submitted that the assessee has received this amount in lieu of other residual things available on the land which was sold. He submitted that when the agricultural land was sold it was having the crops over it and part of amount received for the same. It is also claimed that the payments were as per agreement dated 20.6.2006. It is claimed that there was a dera, pucca drains, brick flooring for approach road, barbed wire fencing all around the land, crops. For the crops of vegetables and fruits, the assessee has received ₹ 13,90,000/-. He also claimed that the amount of ₹ 18,80,000/- was also received for settlement of labourers and he pleaded that it should not be assessed as income from other sources. The details submitted are as under :- Sl.Nos. ITEMS Amount of Compensation 01. Dera (2 rooms 15x12 each) Hand Pump Boundary wall measuring 30x40 Sq.Yards = 120 Sq.Yards =1 140 yard in length and 2 yard high ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ooring must have been supported by vouchers for expenditure and debits in books of accounts and date of investment/expenditure and must have been reflected in the books of account. No such evidences were submitted in this regard. Further the assessee has also not furnished reliable evidence in respect of the claim of compensation for crop of vegetables/fruits. The records maintained by the revenue authorities show that the rice was grown in the June, 2006, therefore, the claim of the assessee regarding various crops standing for which the compensation shows as received is unsustainable claim. Similarly, there is no reliable evidence in respect of the claim made for the compensation of the labourers. In absence of any evidence in this regard 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 vs. ITO repo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
