TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 875X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duction was restricted to the investment in the new asset at ₹ 35 lakhs. Relevant findings of the Hon’ble High Court are reproduced by the CIT(A) the appellate order which are being referred to but not being reproduced for the sake of brevity. The said proposition laid down in the case of Shri Vilas Balram Patil [2017 (12) TMI 1656 - ITAT PUNE] the claim of deduction under section 54 of the Act was denied to the assessee as he had not deposited the amount in the capital gains scheme account by the due date of filing the return of income. Thus hold that the assessee is not entitled to claim of deduction under section 54B of the Act as the assessee has failed to deposit the unutilized amount of capital gains in the capital gains scheme account by the date of filing of return of income. Since this issue is settled by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court, hence, the matter is being decided ex parte the assessee. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are thus dismissed. - ITA No.617/PUN/2018, ITA No.618/PUN/2018, ITA No.619/PUN/2018, ITA No.620/PUN/2018, ITA No.621/PUN/2018 And ITA No.622/PUN/2018 - - - Dated:- 31-12-2018 - Ms. Sushma Chowla, JM For the Appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... L on or before the final hearing, if necessities so arises. 8. Appellant prays leave to adduce such evidence to substantiate its case. 6. The appeal of the assessee was fixed for hearing. 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 under section 133A of the Act was conducted in the case of M/s. Pharande Promoters and Builders. During the survey proceedings, it was noticed that the said concern had purchased the land at plot number 725 and 731 located at Borhadewadi, Moshi for a t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... purchase consideration was paid. The assessee had also not furnished the details of payment as well as capital gains scheme account details. The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee had purchased the land after due date of filing the return of income and the requirement of law was that the sale consideration had to be deposited in the capital gains account by the due date of return of income. Since the assessee had not furnished any details the claim of deduction under section 54B of the Act was disallowed. 8. The CIT(A) noted the details of sale consideration and that the coowners reinvested in purchase of agricultural land and have tabulated the same under Para No.5.1 at page 5 of the appellate order. The CIT(A) also observed that the Assessing Officer had disallowed the deduction claimed under section 54B of the Act in view of the violation of section 54B(2) of the Act. The assessee had sold the land to Pharande Promoters and Builders on 12-10- 2011 and had made the investment in new agricultural land on 26-08-2013. The assessee along with her other family members had invested in the new land. The said deed was silent about the contribution of each of them individual ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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, the requirement of the law was that she should have parked the funds in capital gains scheme account. However, no such investment was made in the capital gains scheme account. Before the CIT(A), the assessee in the written submissions, copy of which is placed on record had relied on the ratio laid down by the Hon ble Bombay High Court in Humayun Suleman Merchant Vs. CCIT (supra) to point out that liberal/beneficial interpretation/construction is to be given to the provisions of section 54 of the Act in order to boost the investment in housing sector. Though, admittedly, the assessee has utilized the amount for the purchase of agricultural land withi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
