TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 2119X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m under sub-section (1) of section 142 may furnish the return for any previous year at any time before the expiry of one year from the end of the relevant assessment year or before the completion of the assessment year whichever is earlier - since the assessee had invested the whole amount which was within the extended period of filing the return of income u/s 139(4) therefore, the assessee was entitled to claim exemption u/s 54(F). The assessee had thus utilized the amount which was more than capital gain earned towards construction of new residential house within extended period u/s 139 (4) and therefore the there was no default in not depositing the amount under the capital gain account scheme. Therefore, the claim made by assessee canno ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated, the facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income for the assessment year (AY) 2012-13 on 26.03.2014 declaring total income of ₹ 79,76,797/-. The assessee had claimed ₹ 1,46,20,735/- as exemption u/s 54 of the Act. The Assessing Officer (AO) found that the assessee had not deposited the sale proceeds of the properties sold in the Capital Gains Accounts Scheme (CGAS). In response to a query raised by the AO, the assessee submitted that the main intention of law is to grant exemption of the capital gains arising out of sale of a house property to the extent of amount invested in the new residential property. It is also submitted by the assessee that the due date for furnishing the return of income as per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ady invested in new property. For the purpose of section 54(2), the requirement is that the assessee should have invested in CGAS within the due date u/s 139(1). Before the Ld. CIT(A), the AR of the assessee relied on the decision in CIT v. Ms. Jagriti Aggarwal 339 ITR 610 (P H); Anilkumar Omkar Singh v. ITO in ITA No. 4648/Mum/2013 (Mumbai Tribunal); Sh. Sunil Vishnu Mehta v. ITO in ITA No. 2948/Mum/2012 (Mumbai Tribunal); Fatimabai v. ITO 2008 (10) TMI 563 (Karnataka HC); Y. Malarvizhi v. ITO 1958/Mds/ 2013 dt. 10.11.2014 (Chennai Tribunal). Reference was also made to Circular No. 495 dated 22.10.1987 wherein amendment to section 54 and its intent is discussed. The Ld. CIT(A) observed that the assessee being an individual, the du ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tra, the Ld. counsel of the assessee submits that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision in Rajesh Kumar Jalan (supra) and Kishore H. Galaiya (supra). 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant materials on record. In the case of Rajesh Kumar Jalan (supra), relied on by the Ld. counsel, the Hon ble High Court held : From a plain reading of sub-section (2) of section 54 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, it is dear that only section 139 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is mentioned in section 54(2) in the context that the unutilized portion of the capital gain on the sale of property used for residence should be deposited before the date of furnishing the return of the Income-tax under section 139 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pital gain was invested in the new flat, the assessee claimed exemption u/s 54 of the Act. The AO, however, denied the exemption on the ground that the assessee could not produce evidence regarding taking possession of the said flat within a period of two years from date of transfer of old flat and only evidence submitted was towards showing the fact that the purchase agreement was registered on 29.12.2007. On appeal, the CIT(A) upheld the order of the AO by holding that the capital gain had neither been deposited in the prescribed scheme nor the possession of the flat was obtained within the prescribed period. In further appeal, the Tribunal vide para 6.4 held : 6.4 The assessee has also made a point that the due date of filing of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Jagtar Singh Chawla v. ACIT [IT Appeal No.4923/Delhi/2010 (AY-2007-08), order dated 30.6.2011], in which case the Tribunal held that since the assessee had invested the whole amount by 23.4.2008 which was within the extended period of filing the return of income u/s 139(4) till 31.3.2009 and therefore, the assessee was entitled to claim exemption u/s 54(F). In the present case, the capital gain earned by the assessee was ₹ 9,98,411/- and the assessee had utilized a sum of ₹ 13.50 lakhs towards the construction of residential house by 5.7.2007 which was within the extended period of filing of the return u/s 139(4) till 31.3.2008 for the assessment year 2006-07. The assessee had thus utili ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
