Taxpublishers.in - InterestingDecision/Flash_222.htm - Tax Publishers Your Tax Solution Hub

Share via Whatsapp 336 Views


The Tax Publishers Harminder Kaur v. ITO [ITA No. 2656/Del/2017, dt. 10-2-2021] : 2021 TaxPub(DT) 881 (Del-Trib) Time reckoning for reinvestment under section 54 -- Whether before return under section 139(1) or under section 139(4) -- Possession not given booking of flat with private builder whether eligible for reinvestment benefit under section 54 *Facts:* Assessee was a co-owner in a property which she sold and reinvested the said proceeds before due date for filing belated return under section 139(4) besides filing a belated return. It was the case of the assessing officer and the Commissioner (Appeals) that the time limit reckoning under section 54 was to be before the due date of filing the return of income under section 139(1) and not under section 139(4). No investment in capital gains scheme was also made by assessee before time limit under section 139(1). The assessee had invested in a flat with a private builder of which no possession was also granted. Accordingly basing these two reasons the benefit of section 54 was denied to assessee. On further appeal by them -- Held in favour of the assessee that they were entitled to the benefit of section 54. The time limit of reckoning for section 54 is to be read as 139(4) and not as 139(1) as section 139(4) is also a sub-set of section 139(1). The booking of flat with private builder is to be considered as purchase by way of reinvestment and thus possession not being in place is not a pre-requisite for claim of section 54 benefit. Applied for section 139(4) time limit -- Principle Commissioner of Income Tax v. Shankar Lal Saini, (2018) 89 taxmann.com 235 (Rajasthan) Commissioner of Income Tax v. Ms. Jagriti Aggarwal (2011) 15 taxman.com 146 (P&H) : 2011 TaxPub(DT) 1961 (P&H-HC) Commissioner of Income Tax v. Jagtar Singh Chawla (2013) 33 taxmann.com 38 (Punjab and Haryana) : 2013 TaxPub(DT) 1583 (P&H-HC) Fatima Bai v. Income Tax Officer, [ITA No. 435 of 2004] (Karnataka) : 2010 TaxPub(DT) 0227 (Karn-HC) Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin in case of Muthuletchumi Janardhahanan Applied for possession not being a condition and booking of flat is good enough as reinvestment done -- Commissioner of Income Tax v. RL Sood (2000) 108 Taxman 227 (Delhi) : (2000) 245 ITR 727 (Del) : 2000 TaxPub(DT) 0875 (Del-HC) Commissioner of Income Tax v. Mrs. Hilla JB Wadia (1995) 216 ITR 376 (Bombay) : 1995 TaxPub(DT) 0162 (Bom-HC) Ram Prakash Miyan Bazaz v. DCIT (2014) 45 taxmann.com 550 (Jaipur-Trib) : 2014 TaxPub(DT) 2462 (Jp-Trib) Smt. Usha Vaid v. ITO (2012) 25 taxmann.com 188 (Amitsar-Trib) : 2012 TaxPub(DT) 2904 (Asr-Trib) CBDT Circulars No. 471, dated 15-10-1986 and Circular No. 672, dated 16-10-1993 read into.

The Tax Publishers

Harminder Kaur v. ITO [ITA No. 2656/Del/2017, dt. 10-2-2021] : 2021 TaxPub(DT) 881 (Del-Trib)

Time reckoning for reinvestment under section 54 -- Whether before return under section 139(1) or under section 139(4) -- Possession not given booking of flat with private builder whether eligible for reinvestment benefit under section 54

Facts:

Assessee was a co-owner in a property which she sold and reinvested the said proceeds before due date for filing belated return under section 139(4) besides filing a belated return. It was the case of the assessing officer and the Commissioner (Appeals) that the time limit reckoning under section 54 was to be before the due date of filing the return of income under section 139(1) and not under section 139(4). No investment in capital gains scheme was also made by assessee before time limit under section 139(1). The assessee had invested in a flat with a private builder of which no possession was also granted. Accordingly basing these two reasons the benefit of section 54 was denied to assessee. On further appeal by them --

Held in favour of the assessee that they were entitled to the benefit of section 54. The time limit of reckoning for section 54 is to be read as 139(4) and not as 139(1) as section 139(4) is also a sub-set of section 139(1).

The booking of flat with private builder is to be considered as purchase by way of reinvestment and thus possession not being in place is not a pre-requisite for claim of section 54 benefit.

Applied for section 139(4) time limit --

Principle Commissioner of Income Tax v. Shankar Lal Saini, (2018) 89 taxmann.com 235 (Rajasthan)

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Ms. Jagriti Aggarwal (2011) 15 taxman.com 146 (P&H) : 2011 TaxPub(DT) 1961 (P&H-HC)

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Jagtar Singh Chawla (2013) 33 taxmann.com 38 (Punjab and Haryana) : 2013 TaxPub(DT) 1583 (P&H-HC)

Fatima Bai v. Income Tax Officer, [ITA No. 435 of 2004] (Karnataka) : 2010 TaxPub(DT) 0227 (Karn-HC)

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin in case of Muthuletchumi Janardhahanan

Applied for possession not being a condition and booking of flat is good enough as reinvestment done --

Commissioner of Income Tax v. RL Sood (2000) 108 Taxman 227 (Delhi) : (2000) 245 ITR 727 (Del) : 2000 TaxPub(DT) 0875 (Del-HC)

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Mrs. Hilla JB Wadia (1995) 216 ITR 376 (Bombay) : 1995 TaxPub(DT) 0162 (Bom-HC)

Ram Prakash Miyan Bazaz v. DCIT (2014) 45 taxmann.com 550 (Jaipur-Trib) : 2014 TaxPub(DT) 2462 (Jp-Trib)

Smt. Usha Vaid v. ITO (2012) 25 taxmann.com 188 (Amitsar-Trib) : 2012 TaxPub(DT) 2904 (Asr-Trib)

CBDT Circulars No. 471, dated 15-10-1986 and Circular No. 672, dated 16-10-1993 read into.