ITO, Faridabad V. Sh. Kanwar Pal Rajput, Faridabad

ITA 1325/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 90940 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-04-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 08-04-2015
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 19-03-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GAURAV DUDEJA
• Keywords: Capital asset; Cost of acquisition; Revised return
• Section: 54B; 54F; 54; 139

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: D NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI , ACCOUNTANT MEMBE R AND SHRI I. C. SUDHIR, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .NO. 1325 /DEL/2012(AY-2007-08 ) ITO WARD-11 (3), B-BLOCK, CGOCOMPLEX, NH IV FARIDABAD (APPELLANT) VS KANWAR PAL RAJPUT D-66, JALVAYU VIHAR, SECTOR, 29 FARIDABAD ADIPR8208C (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SH. GAURAV DUDEJA, SR. DR RESPONDENT BY SH. SALIL AGRAWAL, ADV, SH. SAILESH GUPTA, CA DATE OF HEARING 8/4/2015 ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 17/04/2015 ORDER PER N. K. SAINI, AM THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE DEPARTMENT AGAINST THE ORD ER DATED 20/12/2011 OF THE LD. CIT(A) FARIDABAD. FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAS BEEN RAISED IN THIS APPEAL. 1 . ' ON TH E FACTS AND IN TH E CIR C UMSTANC E S OF TH E CAS E, TH E LD . C1T (A) HAS E RRED ON FA C T S AND IN LAW IN DELETING TH E DISALLOW A NC E O F RS . 18 , 00, 000 1 - MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC E R ON A /C OF NON UTILI Z ATION OF CAPITAL GAIN BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FURNISHING O F THE RETURN I . E 31 / 7 / 2007 . BY THIS DATE NEITHER ASSESSEE PURCHASED TH E N E W AGRICULTURAL LAND NOR C APITAL GAIN WAS D E POSIT E D INTO CAPITAL G A IN ACCOUNT WITH A NATIONALIZ E D BANK AS WAS MANDATOR Y A S P E R PROVI S ION S OF S E CTION 54B(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT , 1961. ' 2. ' ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT( A) HAS ERR E D ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN APPRECIATING TH E FACTS THAT THE ASS E S SEE NOT HAVING COMPLI E D WITH THE CONDITIONS SP E CIFI E D IN S E CTION 54B (2) OF TH E ACT , WAS NOT E NTITL E D FOR E X E MPTION AND TH E E X E MPTI O N H AS B E E N RIGHTL Y D E NI E D B Y TH E ASS E SSING OFF I C E R. TH E R E LIANC E MA Y BE PLAC E D ON THE DECISION OF HON ' BLE DELHI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CAS E OF TARNBIR SINGH SAWHNEY V S . DY . CIT (2006) 5 SOT 417 ( DEL) . ' 3. ' ON THE FA C TS AND IN TH E CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , TH E LD . CIT (A) HAS IGNORED TH E C L E AR PROVISIONS OF LAW WHIL E ALLOWING TH E D E DU C TION OF RS . 1 8 , 00 , 000 1 - . LD . CIT (A) ' S OBSERVATION THAT ' TH E INV E STM E NT IN FDR S INSTEAD OF CAPITAL GAIN ACCOUNT SCHEME CONSTITUTED ONLY A TECHNICAL BREACH OF PROVISIONS AS TH E APPELLANT WAS NOT HAVING CONTROL OV E R THE MONEY DEPOSITED IN FDRS WHICH CONSEQUENTLY STOOD UT ILIZED FOR SPECIFIED PURPOSE ' IS NOT A RELEVANT CRITERION TO D E CIDE - THE ELIGIBILIT Y OF THE ASSESSEE FOR E XEMPTION HAVING R E GARD TO THE C LEAR PR O VISIONS O F AW AW. 4 . ' THAT THE APP E LLANT C RAVES FOR THE PERMISSION TO ADD, DELETE OR AMEND TH E GROUNDS OF APP E AL BEFORE OR AT TH E TIM E OF HEARING OF APPEAL . ' 2.FROM THE ABOVE GROUNDS, IT IS GATHERED THAT ONLY GRIEVANCE OF THE DEPARTMENT RELATES TO THE DELETION OF DISALLOWANCE OF RS.18 LAKH MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF NON - UTILISATION OF CAPITAL GAIN BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FURNISHING OF THE RETURN . 3. FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THAT THE ASS ESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME ON 13 / 7 / 2007 DECLARING AN INCOME OF RS.1,69,274 / - WHICH WAS PROCESSED U / S143 (1) OF THE IT ACT 196 1 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) . THEREAFTER THE ASSESSEE FILED THE REVISED RETURN ON 12 / 3 / 2008 DECLARING THE SAME INCOME BUT REVISED THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN TO RS. 26,97,829 / - AS AGAINST RS.30 L AKH DEC L ARED IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN AND THE CAPITAL GAIN WA S CLAIMED EXEMPT U / S 54B OF THE ACT . LATER ON THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDIN GS THE AO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE SOLD URBAN AGRICULTURAL LAND SITUATED AT P ALWAL ON 7 1 12 / 2006 FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.30 LAKHS AND WORKED OUT THE LON G TERM CAPITAL GAIN AT RS.26,97,829 / - AFTER REDUCING INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION OF RS. 3,41 , 070 / - . AGAINST THE SAID LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ASSESSEE CL AIMED DEDUCTION OF RS . 4 , 98,500 / - U / S 54B ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT MADE ON 20 1 7 / 2006 . PURCHASE OF A FARM HOUSE AT PUNE, DEDUCTION OF RS.5 ,05,968 / - IN RESPECT OF PURCHASE OF RESIDENTIAL HOUSE NO. K-66, JALVAYU VIH AR, SECTOR 29 , FARIDABAD AND DEDUCTION OF RS.18 LAKH U / S 54B OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT IN I AGRICULTURAL LAND. THE AO DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF D EDUCTION U / S 54B AMOUNTING TO RS.18 LAKH ON THE GROUND THAT THE AMOU NT OF CAPITAL GAIN WAS NOT INVESTED IN CAPITAL GAIN ACCOUNT SCHEME AS LAID DOWN U / S 54B (2) OF THE ACT BUT ONLY IN FDRS, PRIOR TO PURCHASE OF AGRICULT URAL LAND. 4 . BEING AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER TO THE LD. CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE INVESTMENT AGGREGATING TO RS.22, 16,080 / - HAD BEEN MADE ON 8 1 7 / 2008 AND 22 1 11 1 2008 IN PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AND THUS ENTI TLING FOR A DEDUCTION U / S 54B OF THE ACT . IT WAS STATED THAT APART FROM ABOVE THE ASSESSEE ALSO INVESTED A SUM OF RS.5,05,968 IN RESP ECT WHEREOF, HE WAS ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION U / S 54F OF THE ACT . IT WAS STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE INVESTED RS.27,22,048 WHICH AMOUNT EXCEEDED THE AMO UNT OF CAPITAL GAINS OF RS.26,97,829 / -. 5. THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSES DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO BY OBSERVIN G THAT FOR ALLOWABILIT Y OF DEDUCTION U / S 54B OF THE ACT THE ASSESSEE HAD CONTENDED THAT A NE W AGRICULTURAL LAND WAS PURCHASED BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN U / S 139( 4) OF THE ACT AND THAT THE DEPOSITS IN FDRS IN STEAD OF A SCHEME SPECIFIED U / S 54B (2) OF THE ACT CONSTITUTED ONLY A TECHNICAL B REACH AND THE DEDUCTION SHOULD BE ALLOWED BY APPLYING A LIBERAL INTERPRETAT ION SINCE THOSE PRO V ISIONS ARE IN THE NATURE OF BENEFICIARY PROVISIONS. THE RE LIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS:- (I ) MOTILAL PADAMPT SUGAR MILLS CO . LTD . VS STATE OF UTTAR PRAD E SH & ORS 118 ITR 326 (S C ) (II ) CIT VS RAJ E SH KUM A R JALAN (2006)286 ITR 2 7 4 (GAU ) ( III ) SHRI JAGTAR SINGH CHAWLA VS ACIT IN ITA N O . 4 923 1 DEL 1 2010 ORDER DATED 30 /0 6 / 2011 6. THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSES DELETED THE ADDITION MADE B Y THE AO BY OBSERVING THAT THE ASSESSEE F ILED TH E ORIGINAL RETURN WITHIN THE PERIOD PRESCRIBED U / S 139(1) OF THE ACT AND HAD FILED A REVISED RETURN ON 12 / 3 / 2008 AND THE RE V ISED RETURN PARTAKES THE CHARACTER OF ORIGINAL RETURNS. THE LD. CIT(A) POINTED OUT THAT T HE HON ' BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. JAGIRTI AGRAWAL ( 2011) 15 TAXMAN.COM 146 HAS HELD THAT IF INVESTMENT IN NEW ASSET IS MAD E EVEN BEFORE THE TIME PRESCRIBED U / S 139(4) AND THE RETURN IS FILED BELATEDLY, THE CLA IM OF D E DU C TION SHALL BE ALLOWABLE . HE ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE INVESTMENT IN AGRICULTURA L LAND HAD BEEN MADE ON 8 / 7 / 2008 AND 22 1 11 / 2008 WITHIN THE PERIOD OF 2 YEARS FROM THE DATE OF SALE OF ORIGINAL ASSET . THEREFORE , THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITL E D TO C L A IM DEDUCTION U / S 54B OF THE ACT . NOW , THE DEPARTMENT IS IN APPEAL . 7. THE LD. DR REITERATED THE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY T HE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 14 1 12 / 2009 AND FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT TH E A SSESSE E TO C L A IM THE DEDUCTION U / S 54B OF THE ACT WAS R E QUIRED TO IN V EST THE S A L E PROC EE D F ROM AGRICULTURAL LAND IN THE PURCHASE OF AGRICULTUR AL LAND WITHIN 2 YEARS OF THE SALE AND IF THE AMOUNT WAS NOT UTILISED TO PURC HASE THE AGRICULTURAL L A ND BEFORE FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME , IT WAS TO BE DEPOSITED IN THE SPECIFI E D B A N K 5 ITA NO . 1325/DEL/2012 ACCOUNT BUT THE ASSESSES DEPOSITED THE AMOUNT IN TH E FDR AND NOT INVESTED IN THE AGRICULTURAL LAND. IT WAS FURTHER STATED THAT T HE EXTENDED PERIOD U / S 139 (4) OFTHE ACT WAS AVAILABLE UPTO 31 1 3 / 2008 BUT THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED THE AGRICULTURAL LAND BEYOND THE EXTENDED PERIOD ON 8 / 7 / 2008 & 22 1 11 1 2008. THEREFORE, THE AO RIGHTLY DENIED THE DEDUCTION U / S 54B OF THE ACT AND THE LD, CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION M ADE BY THE AO. 8. IN HIS RIVAL SUBMISSIONS , THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND F URTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSES UTILIZED THE SALE PROCEEDS OF THE AGRICULT URAL LAND FOR PURCHASE OF THE AGRICULTURAL LAND WITHIN 2 YEARS OF THE SALE WHICH WAS ON 7 1 12 / 2006. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE EXTENDED PERIOD OF LIMIT ATION OF FILING OF RETURN U / S 139 (4) OF THE ACT WAS UP TO 31 / 3 / 2009 . THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ARBITRARY ADDITION MADE B Y THE AO. 9. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE P ARTIES AND CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE SOLD URBAN AGRICULT URAL LAND SITUATED AT PALWAL ON 7 1 12 / 2006 AND CLAIMED THE DEDUCTION U / S 54B OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT MADE IN AGRICULTURAL LAND AMOUNTING TO R S. 18 LAKH. THE SAID INVESTMENT WAS MADE ON 8 / 7 / 2008 AND 22 1 11 1 2008. TO RESOLVE THE PRESENT CONTROVERSY, IT IS NECESSAR Y TO DISCUSS THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN SECTION 548 OF THE ACT WHICH READ AS UNDER:- 54B . [(I)] [SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF' SUB-SECTION (2). WHERE THE CAPITAL GAIN ARISES] FROM THE TRANSFER OF A CAPITAL ASSET BEING LAND WHICH. IN THE TWO YEARS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE DATE ON WHICH THE T RANSFER TOOK PLACE. WAS BEING USED BY [ T HE ASSESSEE BEING AN INDIVIDUAL OR HIS PARENT . OR A HINDU UNDIVIDED FAMILY] FOR AGRICU L TURAL PURPOSES [HEREINAFTER R EFERRED TO AS THE O RI GINAL ASSE. AND THE ASSESSEE HAS, WITHIN A PERIOD OF TWO YEARS AFTER THAT DATE, PURCHASED ANY OTHER LAND FOR BEING USED FOR AGRICULTURAL PURP OSES, THEN, INSTEAD OF T HE CAPITAL GAIN BEING CHARGED TO INCOME-TAX AS INCO ME OF THE 6 ITA NO . 1325/DEL/2012 PREVIOUS YEA R IN WHICH THE TRANSFER TOOK PLACE, IT SHALL BE DEALT WITH IN ACCORDANCE WI T H THE FOLLOWING PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION, THAT IS TO SAY, (I) IF T HE AMOUNT OF THE CAP I TAL GAIN IS G R EATE R THAN THE COST OF THE LAND SO P URCHA SED (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE NEW ASSET), THE DIFFERENCE BE T WEE N TH E AMOUNT OF THE CAPITAL GA I N AND THE COST OF THE NEW ASSET SHAL L BE CHA R GED UNDER SECTION 45 AS T HE I NCOME OF THE PREVIOUS) 'EAR; A ND FO R T H E PURPOSE OF COMPU TI NG I N RESPECT OF THE NEW ASSET ANY CAPITA L GAI N A RI S IN G FROM ITS T R ANSFER WI T HIN A PERIOD OF THREE ) 'EARS OF I TS PURCHAS E , TH E C OS T S HALL B E NIL ; OR ( I I ) IF TH E A M OU NT OF THE CAPITAL GAIN IS EQUAL TO OR LESS THAN THE CO ST OF THE N EW ASSE T . T HE CAP I TA L G A IN SH A L L NOT BE C H ARGED UN DER SECTION 45 ; A N D FOR T H E PU R POSE OF CO M PUTING IN RESPECT OF THE NEW ASSET ANY CAPI T A L GAIN A R IS IN G FROM ITS TRANSFER WITHIN CL. PERIOD OF THREE YEARS OF ITS PURCHASE, T H E COST S H A L L HE REDUCED. BY THE AMOUN T OF THE CAPIT A L GAIN . ] [(2) THE AMOUNT OF THE CAPITAL GAIN WHICH IS NOT UTILISE D BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PURCHASE OF THE NEW ASSET BEFORE THE DATE OF FU R NISHING THE RETURN OF INCOME UNDER SE CTION 139 , SHALL BE DEPOSITED BY HIM BEFORE FURNISHING SUCH R ETU R N (S U CH DEPOSIT BEING MADE IN ANY CASE NOT LA T ER THAN THE DUE DATE A P PL I CAB L E IN THE CASE OF T HE ASSE S SEE FOR FURNISHING THE RETURN OF INCOME UN DE R S UB- SECT I ON (1) OF S E CTION 139 7 IN AN ACCOUNT IN AN)' SUCH HANK OR INSTI T UT I ON AS MAY BE SPECIFIED IN. AND UTILISED IN ACCORDAN CE WITH . ON)' SCHEME WH I CH THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT MAY BY NOTIFICATION IN THE OFFICIAL G A ZE TT E, FRA ME IN TH I S BEHALF A N D SUCH RE T URN SHA L L BE ACCOMPANIED BY PROOF O F S U C H D E P OS I T: AND , FO R T H E PUR PO S ES OF SU B- SEC TI ON ( 1 ) . T HE A MOU N T, IF ANY. ALREADY UTI LISED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PU R CHASE OF T H E NEW ASSET TOGETHER WITH THE AMOUNT SO DEPOSITED SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE THE COST OF THE NEW ASSET : P R OV I DE D THAT IF THE AMOUNT DEPOSITED UNDER THIS SUB-SECTION IS NOT UTILISED WHOLLY O R PO R TLY FOR THE PURCHASE OF THE NEW ASSET WITHIN THE PE RIOD SPECIFIED I N SUB - SECT I ON (I ), THEN. (I) THE AMOUNT NOT SO UTILISED SHALL HE CHARGED UND ER SEC TI ON 4 5 AS THE INCOME OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH THE PERIOD OF TWO YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THE TRANSFER OF THE ORIGINAL ASSET EXPIRES; AND ( II ) TH E A S S ES S EE S H A LL BE E NTITL ED TO WITH D R A W S U CH AM O U NT I N ACCO R DANCE WI TH T HE SCHEME AFORESA I D . 10. FROM THE ABOVE PROVISIONS, IT IS C LEAR THAT THE DEDUCTION U / S 54B O F TH E ACT IS A V AILABLE ON THE INVESTMENT MADE WITHIN A PERIOD OF 2 YEARS A FTER F ROM THE D A TE OF SALE OF A G RICULTURAL L A ND T H E S AID IN V ESTMENT I S R E QUIR E D TO B E M A DE FOR THE PURPO S E OF LAND TO B E US E D FOR A G RICULTUR A L PURPO S E S . IN TH E 7 ITA NO.1325/DEL/2012 PRESENT CASE THE ASSESSEE SOLD THE URBAN . AGRICULTURAL LAND ON 7 1 12 / 2006 A ND THE INVESTMENT WAS MADE FOR PURCHASE OF THE AGRICUL TURAL LAND ON 7 / 8 / 2008 AND 22 / 11 1 2008 , SO THE INVESTMENT MADE WAS WITHIN THE PERIOD OF 2 Y EARS FROM FOR THE SALE OF LAND . NOW QUESTION ARISES AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO CLAIM THE DEDUCTION EVEN WHEN THE INVES TMENT WAS MADE ON A DATE BEYOND THE DATE OF FURNISHING THE RETURN OF INCOME U / S 139(1) OF THE ACT . IN THIS REGARD THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT I N THE CASE OF CRT VS. JAGTAAR SINGH CHAWLA (2013) ... 215 TAXMAN 154 OBSE RVED IN PARA 9 AND 10 AS UNDER:- 9. A DIVI S ION B E N C H OF TH E GAUH A TI HI G H COURT IN A CASE R E P O RT E D AS CIT VS . RAJ E SH KUMAR JALAN [2006J 286ITR 2 7 4 / 15 7 TAXMAN 39 8 , HELD THAT ONLY SECTION 139 OF THE ACT IS MENTIONED IN SECTION 54(2) OF THE ACT IN THE CONT EX T THAT TH E UNUTILIZ E D PORTION OF TH E CAPIT A L GA IN ON TH E SAL E OF PROP E RT Y U SE D F O R R ES ID E N CE S HOULD B E D E PO S IT E D B EF OR E TH E DATE OF FURNISHING THE RETURN OF THE INCOME TAX UND ER SECTION 139 OF THE A CT AND THAT IT WOULD IN C LUD E E XT E ND E D PERIOD TO FIL E R E TURN IN T E RMS OF SUB SE C TION 4 OF S E CTI O N 139 OF TH E A C T . IT WAS H E LD A S UND E R:- ' FROM A PLAIN READING OF SUB-SECTION (2) OF S E CTION 54 OF TH E INCOME-TAX A C T , 1961 , IT I S C LEAR THAT ONLY S E CTION 139 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT , 1961 , IS M E NTION E D IN S EC TI O N 54 (2) IN TH E CONTEXT THAT THE UNUTILIZED PORTION OF THE CAPITAL GAIN ON THE SAL E OF PROPERT Y US E D FOR R E SIDENCE SHOULD B E D E POSIT E D BEFOR E THE DATE OF FURNISHING TH E R E TURN OF TH E INCOM E - TA X U L S 139 OF TH E INCOME-TAX ACT. S EC TION 139 OF TH E INCOME-TAX ACT , 1961 , CANN O T BE MEANT ONLY SECTION 139(1) , BUT IT MEANS ALL SUB-SE C TIONS OF SECTION 1 39 OF THE INCOM E -TAX ACT , 1961 . UND E R SUB-SE C TION ( 4 ) OF SECTION 139 OF TH E INCOM E -TAX ACT AN Y P E R S ON W HO H AS N O T FURNISHED A RETURN WITHIN THE TIME ALLOWED TO HIM U NDER SUB- 8 ITA NO . 1325/DEL/2012 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 C OMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR WHICHEVER IS EARLIER. ' 10. THE SAID JUDGMENT WAS RELIED UPON BY A DIVISION BEN CH OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN FATHIMA BAI VS. ITO , ITA NO . 435 OF 2004 DECIDED ON 17 TH OCTOBER 200 8 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD TO THE FOLLOWING EFF E CT:- ' 11 . THE E XTENDED DUE DATE U L S 139 (4) WOULD BE 31 / 3 / 1990. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE THE RETURN WITHIN THE EXTENDE D DUE DATE , BUT FILED THE RETURN ON 27 1 2 1 2000. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAD UTILIZED THE ENTIRE CAPITAL GAINS BY PURCHASE OF A HOUSES PROP E RTY WITHIN THE STIPULATED PERIOD OF SECTION 54(2) I.E ., B E FOR E TH E EXTENDED DUE DATE FOR RETURN U L S 139, THE ASSESSEE TECHNICALLY MAY HAVE DEFAULTED IN NOT FILING THE RETURN U L S 139(4). BUT, HOW E VER , UTILIZ E D THE CAPITAL GAINS FOR PURCHASE OF PROP E RTY BEFORE THE EXTENDED DUE DATE U L S 139(4). THE CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE THAT THE DEPOSIT IN THE SCHEME SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE BEFORE THE INITIAL DUE DATE AND NOT THE EXTENDED DU E DATE IS AN UNTENABLE CONTENTION . ' 11.FROM THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN THE AFORESAID REFERR ED TO CASE, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE CAN FURNISH THE RETURN OF INCOME AT AN Y TIME BEFORE THE EXPIRY OF ONE YEAR FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YE AR OR BEFORE THE COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT WHICHEVER IS EARLIER . IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSMENT YEAR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 WHICH ENDS ON 31 1 8 / 2008 . THEREFORE, THE PERIOD EXTENDED BY ONE YEAR END ON T O 31 S T MARCH 2009 AND IN THE PRESENT CASE THE ASSESSEE MADE THE INVESTMENT I N THE AGRICULTURAL LAND BEFORE THE EXTENDED DUE DATE FOR FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME U /S139(4) OF THE ACT I.E. 31/3/2009. THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS FULLY JUSTIFIED IN DI RECTING THE AO TO ALLOW THE DEDUCTION U/S54B OF THE ACT. WE DO NOT SEE ANY INF IRMITY IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT IS DISMI SSED. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17 TH APRIL 2015. (I. C. SUDHIR) (N. K. SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 17/04/2015 R. NAHEED COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI 9 ITA NO . 1 3 25 / DE L/ 20 1 2 12. B E FOR E THE E X T E ND E D DU E D A T E F OR F ILIN G T H E R E TURN OF INCOM E U / S 1 39(4) O F TH E ACT I.E 31 1 03 / 2 009 THEREFORE , TH E LD. CIT(A) WAS F ULL Y JU S TI F IED IN DIR E CTIN G THE AO TO ALLOW THE DEDUCTION U L S 54B OF THE ACT . WE DO NOT SE E A N Y IN F IRMIT Y IN THE IMPU G NED ORDE R O F THE LD . CIT ( A ) ON THI S IS S UE. 7. IN THE R ES ULT , A PP EA L O F TH E D E P A RTM E NT I S DI S MIS S ED. TH J E ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 1-1R M . PRIL 2015 . . (~~K I I' - VI\I/ ~ (I . .ST J DHIR:) ( JUDICIAL MEMB ? DATED : 11 - 1 0 4 / 2015