TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 644X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cannot be meant only Section 139 but it means all sub-Sections of Section 139. Tribunal has been pleased to hold that the assessee has fulfilled condition for deduction u/s 54F within extended time limit of filing of return under Section 139(4) and the claim of the assessee cannot be negated merely he did not deposit amount in the said scheme before the expiry of the time period provided under Section 139(1) of the Act. Thus, taking into consideration the entire aspect of the matter the ratio laid down in the matter Bhavnagar University vs. Palitana Sugar Mills (P.) Ltd. [ 2002 (12) TMI 563 - SUPREME COURT] as also in the matter of CIT vs. Shri K. Ramachandra Rao [ 2015 (4) TMI 620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] , and that if the intention is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... perceptible prejudice to the other side. 3. The case of the assessee is this that the assessee sold an immovable property bearing Plot No. 182/1, 182/2 and 182/3 at Sushrusha Cooperative Housing Society lying and situated at Swagat Park at Thaltej, Ahmedabad for a consideration of ₹ 71,95,620/- with another co-owner having 50% share on the said sale. The said property was purchased way back in F.Y. 2003-04 at ₹ 44,550/- and the capital gain, therefore, earned by the assessee was at ₹ 35,07,459/-. However, due to mistake the said capital gain was shown in the Income Tax Return at ₹ 17,08,554/-. Subsequently on 11.12.2015 the assessee has purchased another property for a consideration of ₹ 85,00,000/- being F ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hand, the Ld. DR relied upon the orders passed by the authorities below. 6. We have heard the rival submissions made by the respective parties, we have also perused the relevant materials available on record including various judgments relied upon by the Ld. Counsel appearing for the assessee which we propose to deal in the forthcoming paragraph. It appears from the record that the assessee on 03.07.2013 sold an immovable property with another co-owner having 50% share on it and subsequently on 11.12.2015 purchased a new propertyfor a consideration of ₹ 85,00,000/-. The assessee then claimed ₹ 35,07,459/-as long term capital gain though the same was not deposited into a separate capital account before filing of the due da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner of Income Tax vs. Rajesh Kumar Jalan, reported in [2016] 157 taxman 398 (Gauhati) where the assessee sold his one-fourth share in a residential property for a consideration to the State Government on 21.12.1995 and earned capital gain. The assessee negotiated and entered into the two agreements dated 09.05.1996 and 17.05.1996 with the owners R and A for the purchase of their residential flat for a consideration. The Assessing Officer rejected the assessee s claim of exemption under Section 54 on the ground that the assessee failed to comply with section 54 by not depositing the unutilized amount of capital gain in the Capital Gains Deposit Scheme, 1988 within the stipulated time of furnishing the return of income-tax under Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore the expiry of one year from the end; of the relevant assessment year or before the completion of %e assessment whichever is earlier under sub-section (4) of section 139 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. On the interpretation of the beneficial provision of Section 54F the Hon ble High Court has further been pleased to rely upon the judgment passed by the Hon ble Apex Court in the matter of Bhavnagar University vs. Palitana Sugar Mills (P.) Ltd. reported in [2003] 2 SCC 111, on this ratio that the scope of the legislation on the intention of the Legislature cannot be enlarged when the language of the provision is plain and unambiguous. In other words, statutory enactments must ordinarily be construed according to its plain meaning and no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pulated and therefore, he is not entitled to the benefit even though he has invested the money in construction is also not. Apart from that we have carefully considered the judgment passed in the matter of ITO vs. Nilima Abhijit Tannu passed by the ITAT, Mumbai Benches, reported in [2019] 106 Taxmann.com 256 (Mumbai Trib.) where the same issue has cropped up and it was observed that when the unutilized portion of capital gain on sale of capital asset is required to be deposited before the date of furnishing of return of tax under Section 139, in such a situation Section 139 cannot be meant only Section 139 but it means all sub-Sections of Section 139.Therefore the Ld. Tribunal has been pleased to hold that the assessee has fulfilled ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
