TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 384X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... utilized for construction of the house, as the dates noted above and therefore in the present facts the decision in the case of Humayun Suleman Merchant [2016 (9) TMI 70 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] squarely applies the facts of the present case. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 5733/Mum/2017 - - - Dated:- 1-3-2019 - Sri Mahavir Singh, JM And Sri G Manjunatha, AM For the Appellant : Shri Ajay R Singh And Shri Ravindra Poojary, ARs For the Respondent : Shri Ajey Malik, DR ORDER PER MAHAVIR SINGH, JM: This appeal filed by the assessee is arising out of the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-17, Mumbai [in short CIT(A)], in CIT(A)-17/IT-33/16-17 vide order dated 25.07.2017. The Assessment was framed b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 13,84,600/- without appreciating that complete details were filed before Assessing Officer and same was part of paper book filed before CIT(A), therefore it is entitled for exemption atleast to the above extent without any dispute as the same is before the date under section 139(1). 3. We have heard rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. Briefly stated facts are that the AO during the assessment proceedings noted that the assessee has claimed exemption of ₹ 77,43,425/- under section 54 of the Act. It was further noted by the AO that the assessee has received capital gain of ₹ 77,43,425/- which was not actually utilized for purchasing of new assets, but was advanced to one company ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AY 2013-15 AY 1996-97 AY 2008-09 1. Due date Under section 139(1) 31/07/2017 31/10/1996 31/07/2008 2. Date of Return filed 25/01/2014 04/11/1996 18/11/2008 3. Due date under section 139(4) 31/03/2015 3103/1998/ 31/03/2010 4. Amount deposited till due date 139(1) 13,84,600/- (date 27/07/2013) 20,00,000/- (till date 23/10/1996) 5. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of Gauhati High Court in Rajesh Kumar Jalan's case (supra) is relied upon. The Gauhati High Court in the above case was concerned with the interpretation of Section 54 of the Act. It construed the provision of sub-Section (2) of Section 54 of the Act which is identically worded to sub-section (4) of Section 54F of the Act. The Court in the aforesaid decision held that the requirement of depositing before the date of furnishing of return of Income under Section 139 of the Act has not to be restricted only to the date specified in Section 139(1) of the Act but would include all sub-section of Section 139 including sub-section (4) of the Act. On the above basis it concluded that if the amount is utilized before the last date of filing o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gh Court in Rajesh Kumar Jalan's case (supra) would not apply so as to hold that the appellant had complied with the Section 54F(4) of the Act. 6. The detailed dates and payments are as under:- Due date under section 139(1) 31/07/2013 Due date under section 139(4) 31/03/2015 Return filed on 25/1/2014 Date of sale 21/5/2012 Payment dates: 27/07/2013 ₹ 13,84,600/- before due date under section 13(1) 16/09/2013 ₹ 7,17,197/- before due date under section 13 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
