TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 180X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 op ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vinder Singh Brar vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh, which was disposed of through order dated 31.10.2014 with a direction to the Board to decide the petitioner's application within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of that order. In compliance, through order dated 03.03.2015, a decision by way of rejection of the petitioner's application was taken by the Board. According to the Board, the petitioner had failed to demonstrate compliance with the condition stipulated in Section 119 (2)(c)(ii) of the Act. It is this order, which is impugned through the present petition. Mr. Alok Mittal learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner assailed the order impugned in the present petition on several grounds. He urged that the petitioner, in order to claim the deduction under Section 54-F of the Act, had all good intentions to utilize the amount of ₹ 2.25 crores received by it as capital gain from the sale of 04 kanals of land for constructing a house on the 27 kanals 16 marlas of land, which remained in the ownership and possession of the petitioner, but was precluded from doing so on account of the interim prohibitory orders pas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Section 119 (2)(c)(ii) of the Act, which applied to the petitioner's case. The afore-referred 04 kanals of land had been sold on 28.06.2011 and as within the period of three years as prescribed under Section 54-F of the Act, capital gains from the sale of the afore-referred long term capital asset having not been utilized for the purpose of construction of a residential house, under the provisions of Section 54-F (4), were liable to be taxed as income of the previous year, in which, the period of three years from the date of transfer of the long term capital asset expired. The deduction under Section 54-F (1) could have been claimed by the petitioner at the most within three years from the date of transfer of the aforesaid long term capital asset. The powers of the Board under Section 119 (2)(c)(ii) of the Act could be invoked by the petitioner only till the time that such deduction could be claimed under the provisions of Section 54-F (4) of the Act and that the petitioner could not seek extension of time to claim the deduction under Section 54-F in perpetuity. It was still further submitted that the petitioner could have constructed a residential house anywhere else tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h such transfer. (2) Where the assessee purchases, within the period of [two years] after the date of the transfer of the original asset, or constructs, within the period of three years after such date, any residential house, the income from which is chargeable under the head Income from house property , other than the new asset, the amount of capital gain arising from the transfer of the original asset not charged under section 45 on the basis of the cost of such new asset as provided in clause (a), or, as the case may be, clause (b), of sub-section (1), shall be deemed to be income chargeable under the head Capital gains relating to long-term capital assets of the previous year in which such residential house is purchased or constructed. xx xx xx xx (4) The amount of the net consideration which is not appropriated by the assessee towards the purchase of the new asset made within one year before the date on which the transfer of the original asset took place, or which is not utilised by him for the purchase or construction of the new asset before the date of furnishing the return of income under section 139, shall be deposited by him before furnishing such return ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee; and (ii) the assessee has complied with such requirement before the completion of assessment in relation to the previous year in which such deduction is claimed : Provided that the Central Government shall cause every order issued under this clause to be laid before each House of Parliament. Under Section 54-F (1), in the case of an individual or a Hindu Undivided Family, if any capital gain arises from the transfer of any long term capital asset, not being a residential house and such individual or a Hindu Undivided Family, within a period of three years from the date of transfer of the long term capital asset, constructs a residential house, then such capital gain is to be dealt with as under :- (a) if the cost of the new asset is not less than the net consideration in respect of the original asset, the whole of such capital gain shall not be charged under section 45 ; (b) if the cost of the new asset is less than the net consideration in respect of the original asset, so much of the capital gain as bears to the whole of the capital gain the same proportion as the cost of the new asset bears to the net consideration, shall not be charged und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tend the benefit of Section 119 to an assessee. The petitioner's case does not fall within either sub-clause (i) or (ii) of clause (c) of Section 119(2). Firstly, it cannot be said that the default in complying with the requirements of Section 54-F, necessary to claim the benefit thereunder, was due to circumstances beyond the petitioner's control. Section 54-F requires the home to be constructed within a stipulated period. It does not require the home to be constructed on the assessee's other properties, even if he has any. In a given case, an assessee may be granted an extension for a reasonable period to construct his house on his property. That however cannot be for an indefinite period of time. The Board would be justified in rejecting the application if the assessee's inability to construct a house on his own property is likely to continue for an unduly long period. There is no inherent right to an extension of time in such circumstances. Thus, the petitioner's application was liable to be rejected for this reason alone. The petitioner has not even complied with sub-clause (ii) of clause (c) of Section 119 (2). The extension can be granted only if an as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
