TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 1148X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duction. We, respectfully following the decision in the case of CIT Vs Ms Jagriti Aggarwal [ 2011 (10) TMI 279 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT ] allow this appeal of the assessee and delete the disallowance, because the objection of the learned CIT(A) is without any basis. The correlation between the investment and receipt of sale proceeds within the time stipulated in Section 54B of the Act has duly been demonstrated by the assessee. In view of the above, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the Assessing Officer is directed to grant deduction under Section 54B - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 657/Ahd/2019 - - - Dated:- 1-12-2021 - Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice President And Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member For the Assessee : None For the Revenue : Shri Kamlesh Makwana, Sr DR ORDER PER RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT : The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals-5), Vadodara [ CIT(A) in short] dated 25.02.2019 passed for Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The solitary grievance of the assessee is that learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance of d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said agricultural land is ₹ 27791850/-. So, calculation of long term capital gain is ₹ 14,07,894/- as calculated above. Details of Agricultural Land Purchased is given as under - Purchased agricultural land and investment is made as under - (i) Block/ R.S.No. 592, Village Anstu, Tal. Karjan, Dist. Vadodara Purchase Price ₹ 5,24,500 Stamp Duty ₹ 26,000 Registration Charges ₹ 5,370 Total ₹ 5,55,870 (ii) Block/R.S.No.591, Village Anstu, Tal. Karjan, Dist. Vadodara Purchase Price ₹ 13,30,500 Stamp Duty ₹ 65,200 Registration Charges ₹ 13,450 Total ₹ 14,09,150 (i)+(ii)=19,65,020/-. My Share is 50% of ₹ 19,65,020 - 9,82,510 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sh Narhari Jakhadi v. ITO [1992] 41 ITD 368 (Pune-Trib.) (ii) Parveen P. Bharucha v/s CIT212 Taxman 166(Bom.) (iii) CIT v/s Ms Jagriti Aggarwal reported in 339 ITR 610 (P H) (iv) CIT Rohtak v/s Shri Jagtar Singh Chawla reported in LD/61/82 Held, Where assessee has proved payment of substantial amount of sale consideration for purchase of a residential property within extended period of limitation of filing of return and acquired a residential house before end of next Financial Year in which sale has taken place, assessee would not be liable to pay any capital gain. The facts of the my case is similar to facts of the above said cases and hence exemption U/s 54F is applicable in my case. Therefore, I request your honor kindly appeal may be allowed. 4. I have considered the order of the AO and the written submissions of the appellant. A.R. is also heard in the matter. 4.1 One of the reason for which the claim of the appellant for relief u/s 54B was rejected by the AO was that unutilized Capital Gain was not deposited in Capital Gain Account Scheme held with bank before the due date of filing of return u/s 139(1) of the Act. Ano ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .3 of the assessment order remains absolute and Ld.AR has not succeeded in controverting those findings. Law on doctrine of substantial compliance and intended use has been explained in by the Hon'ble SC. Equity has no place in interpretation of a tax statute. Strictly one has to look to the language used, there is no room for searching intendment nor drawing any presumption. Furthermore, nothing has to be read into nor should anything be implied other than essential inferences while considering taxing statute. Admittedly, appellant purchased three plots of land, two of them prior to sale deed and one after the sale deed and within time allowed u/s 139(4) of the Act but without depositing Capital Gain in bank. Clearly, there were conspicuous gaps in filing ITR, claiming exemption u/s 54B. 4.5 Considering all these facts, I don't find any cogent reason for noncompliance of statutory provision u/s 54B(2) of the Act. I am of the firm opinion that AO's findings need not be interferred with. Therefore, withdrawal of exemption u/s 54B amounting to ₹ 11,41,430/- is hereby upheld. 5. Perusal of the findings of learned First Appellate Authority would indicate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
