TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 243X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 1,65,27,403/- has been invested by the appellant in the purchase of another agricultural land within two year from the sale of the capital asset i.e. agricultural land. The sale of the asset having been taken place on 13-1-2006, falling in the previous year 2006-07, the return could be filed before the end of relevant assessment year 2007-08, i.e., 31-3-2007. Thus, sub-section (4) of section 139 provides extended period of limitation as an exception to sub-section (1) of section 139. Sub-section (4) is in relation to the time allowed to an assessee under sub-section (1) to file return. Therefore, such provision is not an independent provision, but relates to time contemplated under sub-section (1) of section 139. Therefore, such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as the Act) was served on the assessee. During the relevant assessment year, the assessee had claimed to have earned capital gain of ₹ 1,62,36,847/- on sale of agricultural land at Sonepat, Haryana on 22.3.2006 and invested the same in the purchase of another agricultural land at Rajasthan worth of ₹ 1,73,84,870/-(in 37 transactions) and claimed exemption u/s 54B of the Income Tax Act. A complete list of 37 transactions of purchase indicating date of purchase along with photo copies of all the deeds evidencing purchase of land were filed before the Assessing Authority during the assessment proceedings. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, on 19.12 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed after getting this FD encashed on 19.12.2007. It was pointed out that the AO missed the FDR of ₹ 62 lacs prepared on 12.10.2006 while issuing the said notice. Nothing happened on this notice thereafter which gave a presumption that the assessing officer was satisfied about the amount having been invested in FDRs before the date of filing of returns. Later on, the Assessing Officer issued a notice u/s 147/148 of the Income Tax Act dated 26.03.2012 and withdrew the exemption u/s 54B of the Income Tax Act, of ₹ 69,30,800/- and completed the assessment u/s. 143(3)/147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 vide order dated 28.3.2013. 3. Aggrieved with the aforesaid assessment order, assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment for the relevant assessment year. The reasons recorded by the AO do not indicate that his reason to believe was on ground of failure of the assessee to disclose material particulars truly and correctly. The notice was issued beyond 4 years. The reasons do not say that the assessee does not show any tangible material that created the reason to believe that income had escaped. Rather, the reassessment proceedings accounted to a review or change of opinion carried out earlier. Therefore, on this account also, the reassessment proceedings in the case of assessee was not valid. Reliance in this regard was placed on the decision of the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2002 256 ITR 1 (Del.). Theref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mount of long term capital gain earned on the sale of agricultural land. As per Section 54B, capital gain on transfer of land used for agricultural purposes are not to be charged if the capital gains arises from the transfer of the capital asset being agricultural land has been invested within a period of two year after the date of sale of capital asset being land for income tax purposes. In this case, there is no dispute that the impugned agricultural land was sold by the appellant on 22.03.2006 and the whole amount was invested in the purchase of another agricultural land by 19.12.2007 i.e. within the two years of the impugned sale of agricultural land. It is further observed that the Assessing Officer has disallowed the exemption uls 54B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1), the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana has held Sub-section (4) of section 139 is, in fact, a proviso to sub-section (1) of section 139. Section 139 fixes the different dates for filing the returns for different assessees. In the case of assessee, it is 31st day of July of the assessment year in terms of clause (e) of the Explanation 2 to sub-section (1) of section 139, whereas sub-section (4) of section 139 provides for extension in period of due date in certain circumstances. [Para 10] Thus, if a person had not furnished the return of the previous year within the time allowed under sub-section (1), i.e., before 31st day of July of the assessment year, the assessee could file return before the expiry of one year from the end ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
