The Tax Publishers2021 TaxPub(DT) 0881 (Del-Trib)

INCOME TAX ACT, 1961

Section 54

Where assessee was co-owner of property which she sold and earned capital gain, however, the entire amount of capital arising on sale of aforesaid property was invested in residential house in another city, the assessee was entitled to deduction under section 54 since amount of capital gain was utilised in purchase of property within due date of filing return under section 139(4).

Deduction under section 54 - Booking of flat with private builder - Utilisation of capital gins after the due date from filing of return -

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 AO 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. Held: Assessee was 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 - Principal CIT v. Shankar Lal Saini (2018) 89 taxmann.com 235 (Rajasthan); CIT v. Ms. Jagriti Aggarwal (2011) 15 taxman.com 146 (P&H) : 2011 TaxPub(DT) 1961 (P&H-HC); CIT v. Jagtar Singh Chawla (2013) 33 taxmann.com 38 (Punjab and Haryana) : 2013 TaxPub(DT) 1583 (P&H-HC); Fatima Bai v. ITO, [ITA No. 435 of 2004] (Karnataka) : 2010 TaxPub(DT) 0227 (Karn-HC); CIT v. RL Sood (2000) 108 Taxman 227 (Delhi) : (2000) 245 ITR 727 (Del) : 2000 TaxPub(DT) 0875 (Del-HC); CIT 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) and Smt. Usha Vaid v. ITO (2012) 25 taxmann.com 188 (Amitsar-Trib) : 2012 TaxPub(DT) 2904 (Asr-Trib).

REFERRED :

FAVOUR : In assessee's favour.

A.Y. : 2011-12



IN THE ITAT, DELHI 'C' BENCH

SUBSCRIBE TaxPublishers.inSUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT