9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 875X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2-13 against orders passed under section 143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (in short 'the Act'). 2. This bunch of appeals of related parties on similar issue were heard together and are being disposed off by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 3. The only issue raised in the present appeals is against the computation of income from long term capital gains in the hands of the assessee and connected issue of denial of exemption under section 54B of the Act. 4. The facts and issue in all the appeals are similar. However, for the sake of convenience, I refer to the facts and issues in the case of Uddhav Krishna Bankar in ITA No.617/PUN/2018. ITA No.617/PUN/2018 for A.Y. 2012-13 : 5. The assessee has raised the fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g. However, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. On the perusal of the record, assessment order and the appellate order, it is apparent that the issue raised in the present appeal is covered by the order of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Humayun Suleman Merchant Vs. CCIT (2016) 73 taxmann.com 2 (Bom.). Further, similar issue relying on the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court has been decided by the Pune Bench of the Tribunal (where judicial member is a party) in ITA No.923/PUN/2015 relating to assessment year 2009-10 in the case of ITO Vs. Vilas Balram Patil vide order dated 20-12-2017. 7. Briefly in the facts of the case, the assessee had not furnished any return of income in the stipulated period of time. Survey action u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed a letter dated 29-11- 2016 stating that the return of income filed in response to notice under section 148 of the Act. Thus, the Assessing Officer treated filing of return of income as filed on 29-11-2016 declaring total income of Rs. 20,79,010/-. Thereafter, notice under section 143(2)/ 142(1) of the Act was issued to the assessee asking for various information. The assessee did not comply with the said notice or furnished any information. The Assessing Officer noted that the return filed by the assessee was an invalid return and in the same it had shown capital receipt on account of sale of land to Pharande Promoters and Builders. The assessee had also furnished valuation report in support of its cost of acquisition as on 01-04-1981 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and. The said deed was silent about the contribution of each of them individually and merely mentioned the whole consideration at Rs. 2,22,66,000/-. Since the assessee had not invested the capital gains unutilized upto the date of filing the return of income under section 139 of the Act, in the approved capital gain account scheme, which should have been made on 31-07-2012, the CIT(A) held that there was violation of provisions of section 54B(2) of the Act. Hence, the assessee was not entitled to claim of deduction under section 54B(1) of the Act. In this regard, reliance was placed on the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Humayun Suleman Merchant Vs. CCIT (2016) 73 taxmann.com 2 (Bom.). Thus, the order of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ain arising in the hands of the assessee. However, the dispute which arises is against the claim of the assessee under section 54B(1) of the Act. The said section entitled the assessee to claim the deduction in case the sale proceeds of agricultural land are reinvested in another agricultural land within a period of two years. However, section 54B(2) lays down that in case the sale proceeds are not invested, within the due date of filing of return of income u/s.139 of the Act, then the sale proceeds need to be parked in the capital gains scheme account till it is utilized for the purchase of the new agricultural land. In the case of the assessee where she had sold the land on 12-10-2011 and where her return of income was due by 31-07- 2012 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o interpretation, then there is no occasion to give beneficial construction to a statute. Reference is made to Para No.6 (s) of the said section. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court inturn relies on the decision of Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Rajesh Kumar Jalan (2006) 286 ITR 274 which laid down the proposition that amounts subject to capital gains on sale of capital asset for the purpose of exemption, had to be utilized before the date of filing the return of income and since the same was not utilized for the purpose of investment in construction of the new house nor was deposited in the capital gains scheme account; hence, the assessee was held to be not entitled to the claim of deduction under section 54F of the Act. It m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
