CIT v. Ms. Jagriti Aggarwal

339 ITR 610High Court2011#1724 most cited

What is CIT v. Ms. Jagriti Aggarwal authority for?

A return of income filed within the period allowed under Section 139(4) is valid for claiming exemptions and deductions, including those under Sections 54, 54F, and 80AC. However, depositing the unutilized capital gains in the Capital Gains Account Scheme is a statutory and mandatory requirement for claiming exemption under Section 54F.

66

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Ms. Jagriti Aggarwal · Ms. Jagriti Aggarwal · Section 54F · Section 54 · Section 139(1) · Section 139(4) · Section 80AC · Capital Gains Account Scheme · CGAS deposit · mandatory compliance · belated return · claiming exemption · long term capital gain

Also reported as

15 Taxmann.com 146203 Taxmann 203

Sections most often in play

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 54FSection 10(20)Section 10(46)Section 136
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 54(2)section 139(4)section 80acsection 80asection 54section 54fdate of transfersection 34section 139(1)section 139tangible materiallong term capital gain

Judgments citing CIT v. Ms. Jagriti Aggarwal

Smt. Harminder Kaur, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2656/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Feb 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing]

Section 139(4)Section 148Section 54

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘C’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER [Through Video Conferencing] ITA No.2656/Del./2017 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Smt. Harminder Kaur, Vs. ITO, C/o- Sunil Arora & Ward-36(4), Associates, A-1/118, New Delhi Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi PAN :ANOPK6529P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Ms. Gunjan Jain, CA Respondent by Sh. Gurmel Singh, CIT(DR) Date of hearing 04.01.2021 Date of pronouncement 10.02.2021 ORDER PER O.P. KANT, AM: This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 28/02/2017 p…

Shri Gulab Chand Meena, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 49/JPR/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jan 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 49/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2011-12 Cuke Shri Gulab Chand Meena, A.C.I.T.(Osd), Vs. Village- Dantali, Tehsil- Range-7, Sanganer, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Abupm 2026 R Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Manish Agarwal (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 11/01/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 28/01/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Cit(A)- 3, Jaipur Dated 06/12/2017 For The A.Y. 2011-12 In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S 143(3) Read With Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act), Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. On The Facts & The Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Deduction U/S 54F Of Rs. 5,78,571/- Made By Ld.Ao Arbitrarily & Accordingly Treating It As A Long Term Capital Gain When All The Conditions Prescribed U/S 54F Were Fulfilled By Assessee. 1.1. That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Further Erred In Not Considering The Fact That Assessee Had Submitted The Valuation Report In Support Of His Claim Of 2

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 4Section 54F

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES “A”, JAIPUR Jh lanhi x®lkÃa] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 49/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year :2011-12 cuke Shri Gulab Chand Meena, A.C.I.T.(OSD), Vs. Village- Dantali, Tehsil- Range-7, Sanganer, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ABUPM 2026 R vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Manish Agarwal (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt. Mon…

Rohtash Singh, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 218/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Nov 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘C’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.218/Del./2016 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Rohtash Singh, Vs. DCIT, L-32/5, DLF Phase-II, Circle-2, Gurgaon Gurgaon PAN :AHIPS2749B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri P.C. Yadav, Adv. Respondent by Shri Bhagwati Charan, Sr.DR Date of hearing 04.11.2020 Date of pronouncement 06.11.2020 ORDER PER O.P. KANT, AM: This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 21/10/2015 passed by the learned CIT(Appeals)-2, Gurgaon [in short ‘the Ld. CI…

Smt. Renu Jain, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 5(2), Jaipur

In the result, the matter is decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue and the sole ground of appeal is allowed

ITA 96/JPR/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Mar 2020AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Akshay Shah (C.A.)For Respondent: Miss Chanchal Meena (JCIT)
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 54F

…returns within the time prescribed, if he fails to file returns, he may file returns for any previous year at any time before expiry of one year from the end of relevant assessment year. 4. CIT v. Ms. Jagriti Aggarwal,[2011] 15 taxmann.com 146/203 Taxman 203/339 ITR 610 (Punj. & Har.), it has been held as under : 14 Renu Jain vs. ITO 6. Section 54 of the Act contemplates that the capital gain arises from the transfer of a long term capital asset, but if the assessee within a period of one year before or two years after the date on which the transfer took place purchases residential house, then instead of the c…

Shri Pardeep Kumar Jain, Zirakpur vs. ITO, W-2(3), Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 190/CHANDI/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 190/Chd/2019 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Pradeep Kumar Jain, The Ito, Ward 2(3), बनाम Chandigarh Flat No.222, Orbit Apartments, 6Th Floor, Zirakpur "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Advpj6719P अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manjit Singh, CIT DR
Section 271Section 54

…e of the assessee is that the assessee had purchased second flat within the extended date of filing of the return u/s 139(4) of the Act. This issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of ‘Jagriti Aggarwal 339 ITR 610 (2011) (P&H) wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held that - ITA No. 190-Chd/2019 Shri Pradeep Kumar Jain, Zirakpur 8 “As per sub-s. (2) of s. 54, the amount of capital gains is required to he deposited by the assessee before furnishing the return not later than the due date under s. 139(1) in a specified account only if such amount is not appro…

Shri Champakbhai Ambalal Patel, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3040/AHD/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.3039/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Pankajbhai Ambalal Patel, V The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Surat. 1004, Shreeji Sayona Apartment, S City Light Road, City Light, . Surat – 395007. [Pan: Axjpp 8297 Q] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.3040/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Champakbhai Ambalal Patel, V The Income Tax Officer, 1004, Shreeji Sayona Apartment, S Ward-3(3), Surat. City Light Road, City Light, . Surat – 395007. [Pan: Axjpp 8296 R] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Hiren M.Diwan – Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Smt. Anupama Singla – Sr.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 04.12.2019 उ"घोषणाक"तार"ख/Pronouncement On: 13.12.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: 1. This Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-Iv, Surat Dated 27.08.2014 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. Page 2 Of 10 Pankajbhai Ambalal Patel & Other Vs. Ito, Ward-3(1), Surat. /Ita No’S.3039 & 3040/Ahd/2014 For A.Y. 2010-11

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 54F

…e course of appeal proceedings, written submissions were made, relevant portion of which is reproduced below:- (i) CIT V/s Rajesh Kumar Jalan (2006) 286 ITR 274 (Gau). Gist of the judgment enclosed at Pages No. 8 & 9. (ii) CIT V/s Miss Jagriti Aggarwal (2011) 339 ITR 610 (P&H). Gist of the judgment enclosed at Pages No. 10 & 11. (iii) CIT V/s Jagtar Singh Chawla (2013) 259 CTR (P&H) 388. Gist of the judgment enclosed at Pages No. 12 & 13. The perusal of the above judgments clearly shows that the Hon'ble High Courts have laid down that the provisions of sub-section (4) of section 139 have to be treated as a provis…

Shri Pankajbhai Ambalal Patel, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3039/AHD/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.3039/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Pankajbhai Ambalal Patel, V The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Surat. 1004, Shreeji Sayona Apartment, S City Light Road, City Light, . Surat – 395007. [Pan: Axjpp 8297 Q] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.3040/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Champakbhai Ambalal Patel, V The Income Tax Officer, 1004, Shreeji Sayona Apartment, S Ward-3(3), Surat. City Light Road, City Light, . Surat – 395007. [Pan: Axjpp 8296 R] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Hiren M.Diwan – Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Smt. Anupama Singla – Sr.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 04.12.2019 उ"घोषणाक"तार"ख/Pronouncement On: 13.12.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: 1. This Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-Iv, Surat Dated 27.08.2014 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. Page 2 Of 10 Pankajbhai Ambalal Patel & Other Vs. Ito, Ward-3(1), Surat. /Ita No’S.3039 & 3040/Ahd/2014 For A.Y. 2010-11

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 54F

…e course of appeal proceedings, written submissions were made, relevant portion of which is reproduced below:- (i) CIT V/s Rajesh Kumar Jalan (2006) 286 ITR 274 (Gau). Gist of the judgment enclosed at Pages No. 8 & 9. (ii) CIT V/s Miss Jagriti Aggarwal (2011) 339 ITR 610 (P&H). Gist of the judgment enclosed at Pages No. 10 & 11. (iii) CIT V/s Jagtar Singh Chawla (2013) 259 CTR (P&H) 388. Gist of the judgment enclosed at Pages No. 12 & 13. The perusal of the above judgments clearly shows that the Hon'ble High Courts have laid down that the provisions of sub-section (4) of section 139 have to be treated as a provis…

Hotel Saravana Bhavan, Chennai vs. ACIT Central Circle 1(3), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 474/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Nov 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.474/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Vs The Acit, M/S. Hotel Saravana Bhavan, C/O. Shri.T.N. Seetharaman, Central Circle 1(3), Advocate, Chennai – 34. #384, (Old No.196), Lloyds Road, Chennai – 600 086. Pan: Aabfh 3049M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri T.N. Seetharaman, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Bharath,Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 26.08.2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.11.2019 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri T.N. Seetharaman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Bharath,CIT
Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271ASection 273B

…016. Therefore, it is pleaded that the return filed by the assessee may be treated that it was filed within the specified date. In this regard, the ld.AR relied the decision of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ms.Jagriti Aggarwal 339 ITR 610 (P&H), wherein the assessee sold a house property on 13.01.2006 and purchased a new residential property on 02.01.2007 and claimed deduction U/s.54. The Assessing Officer declined the claim as the assessee failed to deposit the amount in capital gains account scheme and also failed to purchase house property before the due date of filing the retu…

Rajan Gunba Telang, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT - 21, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 2440/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Pradhan

For Appellant: Shri Subhash S. ShettyFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54Section 54(1)Section 54(2)

…) of the Act. In this context, he drew our attention to the following decisions:– i) CIT v/s Rajesh Kumar Jalan, [2006] 286 ITR 274 (Gau.); 6 Rajan Gumba Telang ii) Fathima Bai v/s ITO, [2009] 32 DTR (Kar.) 243 (Kar.); iii) CIT v/s Jagriti Aggarwal, [2011] 339 ITR 610 (P&H); iv) Kishore H. Galaiya v/s ITO, [2012] 137 ITD 229 (Mum.); v) Bina Indrakumar v/s ITO, [2012] 137 ITD 238 (Mum.); vi) Gajendra Kumar T. Agarwal v/s ITO, [2011] 11 ITR (Trib.) 640 (Mum.); vii) Anil Kumar Omkar Singh Aurora v/s ITO, ITA no.4648/ Mum./2013, dated 06.11.2013; and viii) Humayun Suleman Merchant v/s CIT, [2016] 387 ITR 421 (Bom.…

Usha Mahajan, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-60(3), New Delhi

In the result ITA.No.231/Del

ITA 231/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Sinha, C.AFor Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 271(1)(c)Section 54

…ssee relied upon the Judgment in the case of Nandlal Sharma vs. ITO as reported in 61 Taxmann 271 in which several decisions including the Judgment of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court have been referred to in the case of CIT vs. Ms. Jagriti Aggarwal [2011] 339 ITR 610 in which it was held that “Section 139(1) includes Section 139(4)”. It was, therefore, noted that if the sale consideration is utilised for the construction or purchase of a new residential house before due date of filling of return under section 139(4), i.e., 31.03.2010. In this case, the same will be eligible for exemption under section 54 of t…

Usha Mahajan, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-60(3), New Delhi

In the result ITA.No.231/Del

ITA 232/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Sinha, C.AFor Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 271(1)(c)Section 54

…ssee relied upon the Judgment in the case of Nandlal Sharma vs. ITO as reported in 61 Taxmann 271 in which several decisions including the Judgment of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court have been referred to in the case of CIT vs. Ms. Jagriti Aggarwal [2011] 339 ITR 610 in which it was held that “Section 139(1) includes Section 139(4)”. It was, therefore, noted that if the sale consideration is utilised for the construction or purchase of a new residential house before due date of filling of return under section 139(4), i.e., 31.03.2010. In this case, the same will be eligible for exemption under section 54 of t…

Mrs. Kamal Murlidhar Mokashi, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 939/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.939/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 ………. अपीलाथ" / Mrs. Kamal Murlidhar Mokashi, At & Post Moshi Taluka, Appellant Haveli District, Pune – 412105. Pan : Dbypm5370H. बनाम V/S ………. ""यथ" / The Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(3), Pune. Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sanket Joshi. Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Gawali.

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawali
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 54Section 54FSection 54F(4)

…ount Scheme is the due date of filing return u/s 139(4) of the Act and not the due date of filing return u/s 139(1) of the Act, he placed reliance on the following decisions : i) CIT Vs. Rajesh Kumar Jalan [286 ITR 274 (Gau)]. ii) CIT Vs. Jagriti Aggarwal [339 ITR 610 (P&H). iii) Fathima Bai Vs. ITO [32 DTR 243 (Kar)]. He further submitted that the decision in the case of Humayun Suleman Merchant Vs. CCIT reported in 387 ITR 421 relied upon by the Ld. D.R. cannot come to the rescue of the Department and on the contrary, it favours the assessee as the facts are distinguishable because in that case assessee h…

Suresh B Desai, Surat vs. DCIT Central Circle-3, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1721/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A.No’S.1720 & 1721/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Suresh B Desai, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of 101, Vishal Apartment, Near Jamna Income Tax, Central Circle – Nagar Bus Stand, Ghod Dod Road, 3, Surat. Surat – 395 007. [Pan: Aappd 7237 H] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Rasesh Shah – Ca िनधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri S.R.Meena –Sr.Dr राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By 26.07.2019 सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 26.07.2019 उ"ोषणाक"तारीख/Pronouncement On: आदेश /O R D E R Per O.P.Meena, Am: The Above Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The 1. Common Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-4, Surat (In Short The “Cit(A)”) Dated 29.05.2017 For The A.Y. 2011-12 & 2012-13 Challenging The Confirmation Of Penalty Levied U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Act Amounting To Rs.2,01,980/- & Rs.18,370/- Respectively.

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…proposition has been explained by the various High Courts also wherein in the context of sections 54F and 54(2), it has been interpreted that the due date of section 139 can be inferred as due date under section 139(4) also. In CIT v. Jagriti Aggarwal [2011] 339 ITR 610/203 Taxman 203/15 taxmann.com 146 (P&H) , wherein it has been observed and held as under: "6. Sec. 54 of the Act contemplates that the capital gain arises from the transfer of a long-term capital asset, but if the assessee within a period of one year before or two years after the date on which the transfer took place purchases residential house,…

Suresh B Desai, Surat vs. DCIT Central Circle-3, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1720/AHD/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A.No’S.1720 & 1721/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Suresh B Desai, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of 101, Vishal Apartment, Near Jamna Income Tax, Central Circle – Nagar Bus Stand, Ghod Dod Road, 3, Surat. Surat – 395 007. [Pan: Aappd 7237 H] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Rasesh Shah – Ca िनधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri S.R.Meena –Sr.Dr राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By 26.07.2019 सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 26.07.2019 उ"ोषणाक"तारीख/Pronouncement On: आदेश /O R D E R Per O.P.Meena, Am: The Above Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The 1. Common Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-4, Surat (In Short The “Cit(A)”) Dated 29.05.2017 For The A.Y. 2011-12 & 2012-13 Challenging The Confirmation Of Penalty Levied U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Act Amounting To Rs.2,01,980/- & Rs.18,370/- Respectively.

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…proposition has been explained by the various High Courts also wherein in the context of sections 54F and 54(2), it has been interpreted that the due date of section 139 can be inferred as due date under section 139(4) also. In CIT v. Jagriti Aggarwal [2011] 339 ITR 610/203 Taxman 203/15 taxmann.com 146 (P&H) , wherein it has been observed and held as under: "6. Sec. 54 of the Act contemplates that the capital gain arises from the transfer of a long-term capital asset, but if the assessee within a period of one year before or two years after the date on which the transfer took place purchases residential house,…

Madhu Hasmukh Mehta, Mumbai vs. ACIT-19(2)(Now Assessed by CIT-30, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stand

ITA 845/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Amarjit Singh & Assessment Year-2015-16

Section 143(2)Section 54Section 54E

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “D”, MUMBAI Before Shri Shamim Yahya, Accountant Member and Shri Amarjit Singh, Judicial Member and Assessment Year-2015-16 Madhu Hasmukh Mehta, ACIT-19(2)(now assessed by 101, Manokamna Bldg. CIT-30), बनाम/ Chembur East, 207, Matru Mandir, Tardeo Vs. Mumbai-400071 Road, Grant Road (West), Mumbai-400007 PAN No.AFTPM4284L ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee by Shri Pratik H. Mehta Shri S. K. Mishra राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue by सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing : 06/05/2019 13/05/2019 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date of Order: आदेश / O R D E…

Smt. Birma Devi, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6-2, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms indicated

ITA 678/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: The Hearing Of This Appeal.”

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Adv)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (CIT-DR)
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 54B

…re time available for investing in the purchase of new asset was up to 31.03.2015. The assessee invested the funds in August 2014 well within the time available u/s 139(4). The Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ms. Jagriti Aggarwal 339 ITR 610 has held as under:- Capital gains—Exemption under s. 54—Time-limit for making deposit under the scheme vis-a-vis purchase of new house property—As per sub- s. (2) of s. 54, the amount of capital gains is required to be deposited by the assessee before furnishing the return not later than the due date under s. 139(1) in a specified account only i…

Income Tax Officer-25(3)(5), Mumbai vs. Nilima Abhijit Tannu, Mumbai

ITA 5923/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri G. Manjunatha, Am

For Appellant: Ms. Bharti Singh, DRFor Respondent: Shri Vignesh Palkar
Section 1Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 54F

…for the purpose of utilization of amount of capital gain for the purpose of claiming exemption u/s,54F of the Act. The above issue is squarely covered by the decision of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT V/s. Ms. Jagriti Agganval (2011) 339 ITR 610 (P&H), wherein, Their Lordships have held that provision of section 139(4) is not an independent provision, but is related to time contemplated under the provision of section 139(1) of the Act. Accordingly, section 139(4) had to be read along with sub-section (1) of section 139 and the due date for furnishing the return of income u/s. 139(1) is s…

Dr. Kushagra Katariya, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1452/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Dec 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu[Assessment Year: 2011-12]

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Goel, CIT(DR)
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 234BSection 271(1)Section 54Section 54F

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘A’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER [Assessment Year: 2011-12] Dr. Kushagra Kataria, vs. DCIT, Circle 1(1), 5th floor, HSSIDC Building, C/o S. Talwar & Co., 409, Sector-31, Udyog Vihar, Phase-V Gurgaon Gurgaon (PAN: AKWPK6521-E) [Appellant] [RESPONDENT] Assessee by : Shri Arvind Kumar, Adv. & Ms. Sudha Gupta, CA Revenue by : Shri Sanjay Goel, CIT(DR) ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, JM The Assessee has filed this Appeal against the Order dated 13.1.2016 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Gurg…

Shiv Kumar Sushil Kumar Tea Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Kota vs. ACIT, Kota

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 100/JPR/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jul 2018AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri B.L. Bhojwani (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Seema Meena (JCIT)
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 44ASection 80ASection 80I

…sited in time due to shortage of funds. Therefore, it was not possible to furnish a valid return of income on or before the due date. As a result, there was a marginal delay of 31 days in filing the Return of Income. (d) That in CIT v. Jagriti Aggarwal(2011) 339 ITR 610 and many other cases, it has been held that section 139(4) is an extension of section 139(1) and in Asstt. CIT v. Noel Pharma (Appeal No. ITA No. 1664/Hyd/2012) which involves similar facts, the Hon'ble Hyderabad Tribunal made the following observations: "In view of the mitigating circumstances, the delay can be condoned. Further, as rightly hel…

Aneel Kumar Bakshi, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle- I, Noida

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 237/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jul 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Bhavnsh Sainiita No. 237/Del./2018 Assessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. Rajesh Lal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S.L.Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 54

…) accepted the contention of the assessee that assessee would be entitled to file return of income u/s 139(4) of the Income Tax Act with reference to Section 54 of the IT Act, Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court case CIT vs. Ms. Jagriti Aggarwal reported in 339 ITR 610 :- “The assessee sold her house property for Rs. 45 lakhs on January 13, 2006, and having purchased a new residential property on January 2, 2007, claimed deduction under section 54 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer declined the claim holding that the assessee failed to deposit the amount in the capital gains account scheme and…