Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH : SMC : NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A) on 19.09.2016 in relation to the Assessment Year 2012-13.
The only issue raised in this appeal is against the denial of exemption u/s 54F to some extent.
Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee sold plot No.473, Block-C, Sushant Lok Phase-I, Gurgaon for a sum of Rs.82,50,000/- and claimed exemption from capital gain u/s 54F of the Act for a sum of Rs.82,40,536/- in the purchase of Floor (Vatika India Next).
The Assessing Officer observed from the perusal of bank account that the sale deed of the original asset was dated 03.08.2011 and the return u/s 139(1) was filed on 30.07.2012. Only a sum of Rs.51,00,174/- was found to have been appropriated before the filing of the return and the remaining amount of Rs.31,40,362/- was appropriated after the filing of the return.
The claim for exemption u/s 54F was proportionately reduced to Rs.48,01,910/-. The assessee remained unsuccessful before the ld. CIT(A).
I have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. The undisputed fact is that a sum of Rs.51,00,174/- was paid by the assessee for purchase of a new property before the due date of return u/s 139(1) of the Act, for which the Assessing Officer allowed exemption u/s 54F. The denial is only for a sum of Rs.31,40,362/-, which was paid by the assessee in November, 2013, that is, after the due date of return u/s 139(1) of the Act. Here, it is relevant to note that the due date u/s 139(4) for the assessee is 30.03.2014. As the remaining amount of Rs.31.40 lac was utilized by the assessee before the due date of return u/s 139(4), there cannot be any denial of benefit u/s 54F of the Act. The Hon'ble Guwahati High Court in CIT vs. Rajesh Kumar Jalan (2006) 286 ITR 274 (Guwahati) has held so in the context of section 54, whose language is same. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT vs. Jagruti Aggarwal (2011) 339 ITR 610 (P&H). The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in CIT and Anr vs. Smt. Vrinda P. Issac (2011) 64 DTR 376 (Kar) has held that if the amount is paid before the time allowed u/s 139(4), there can be no denial of exemption u/s 54F of the Act. It is relevant to note that the judgment in the case of Vrinda P. Issac (supra) has been rendered in the context of section 54F itself, which is disputed in the instant appeal. The reliance of the ld. DR on the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Humayun Suleman Merchant vs. Chief CIT (2016) 378 ITR 421 (Bom) is misconceived inasmuch as the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the last para of its judgment has also held that the decision in the case of Guwahati High in Rajesh Kumar Jalan( supra) was not applicable to the facts of that case. Such a decision of the Hon'ble Guwahati High Court governs the position as is obtaining in the instant case. Respectfully following the aforestated precedents, I restore the claim of exemption u/s 54F to the extent made by the assessee.