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

ITA 2656/DEL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 109 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4808 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 9 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-02-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 01-05-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Capital asset; Period of limitation; Cost of acquisition; Set aside; Capital Gains
• Section: 54F; 274; 139(1); 139(4); 13; 22; 148; 54; 139

Judgement Text

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, C/O- SUNIL ARORA & ASSOCIATES, A-1/118, SAFDARJUNG ENCLAVE, NEW DELHI VS. ITO, WARD-36(4), NEW DELHI PAN :ANOPK6529P (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ORDER PER O.P. KANT, AM: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST ORD ER DATED 28/02/2017 PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF IN COME-TAX (APPEALS)-12, NEW DELHI [IN SHORT THE LD. CIT(A)] FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 RAISING FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, T HE DISALLOWANCE OF EXEMPTION U/S 54 OF THE ACT AMOUNTING TO RS. 78, 80,819 MADE BY THE ID. A.O. AND CONFIRMED BY THE ID. FIRST APPE LLATE AUTHORITY IS HIGHLY INJUDICIOUS, UNWARRANTED, AGAINST THE FAC TS OF THE CASE 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 2 ITA NO. 2656/DEL./2017 AND BAD AT LAW AS THE APPELLANT HAS DULY COMPLIED W ITH ALL THE CONDITIONS FOR CLAIMING EXEMPTION U/S 54 OF THE ACT . 2. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, T HE FINDING OF THE ID. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY THAT CIRCULAR NO. 471 DT. 15.10.1986 AND 672 DT. 16.10.1993 AS WELL AS JUDICIAL PRECEDEN TS RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLANT ARE NOT APPLICABLE IN HER CASE AND HER CLAIM THAT BOOKING OF FLAT IS BE CONSIDERED AS CONSTRUCTION FO R THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 54 IS WITHOUT ANY BASIS IS GROSSLY INJUDICI OUS, UNWARRANTED, AGAINST THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND BAD AT LAW. 3. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, T HE ID. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN DISREGARDI NG THE CLAIM OF APPELLANT THAT THE AMOUNT INVESTED BEFORE THE FILIN G OF RETURN OF INCOME U/S 139(4) OF THE ACT IS ELIGIBLE FOR CLAIMI NG EXEMPTION U/S 54 OF THE ACT WHICH IS HIGHLY INJUDICIOUS, UNWARRAN TED, AGAINST THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND BAD AT LAW. 4. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, T HE ID. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE ACTION OF ID. A.O. DENYING EXEMPTION U/S 54 OF THE ACT ON THE GRO UND THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT YET RECEIVED THE POSSESSION OF TH E FLAT AND ALSO SALE DEED HAS NOT BEEN EXECUTED TILL DATE WHICH IS HIGHLY INJUDICIOUS, UNWARRANTED AND AGAINST THE SETTLED PR INCIPLE OF LAW. 5. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE TH E FINDING OF THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY THAT THERE IS CONTRAD ICTION IN THE APPELLANTS CLAIM OF PAYMENT OF RS.89,50,000/- MADE TO THE BUILDER FOR WHICH EXEMPTION IS CLAIMED U/S 54 OF TH E ACT IS GROSSLY ERRONEOUS AND AGAINST THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS THE APPELLANT AHS DULY MADE THE SAID PAYMENTS TO THE BUILDER BEFORE T HE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSI DERATION. 6. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE TH E LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS GROSSLY MISINTERPRETED THE BENEFICIAL PROVISIONS OF SEC. 54 OF THE ACT WITHOUT APPRECIATI NG THE INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE BEHIND INTRODUCTION OF THESE PRO VISIONS. 7. THE APPELLANT PRAYS FOR LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND, ALT ER OR WITHDRAW ANY GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 2. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSE SSEE WAS CO- OWNER OF A PROPERTY LOCATED AT PANCHKULA ALONGWITH TWO OTHER PERSONS NAMELY I.E. MS. JASWINDER KAUR AND MS. HARS AWAR KAUR. IN THE CASE OF THOSE TWO CO-OWNERS, THEIR ASSESSING OFFICER 3 ITA NO. 2656/DEL./2017 DISALLOWED THE EXEMPTION CLAIMED BY THEM UNDER SECT ION 54 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). IN VIEW OF DISALLOWANCE OF EXEMPTION IN THE CASE OF TWO OTHER CO-OWNERS, ASSESSMENT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS REOPENED BY WAY OF ISSUE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT. IN TH E REASSESSMENT COMPLETED ON 25/03/2015 IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE , THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54 OF THE ACT AMOUNTING TO 78,80,819/-. ON FURTHER APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO UPHELD THE FINDING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRI BUNAL RAISING THE GROUNDS AS REPRODUCED ABOVE. 3. BEFORE US, THE PARTIES APPEARED THROUGH VIDEO CONFE RENCING FACILITY AND FILED DOCUMENTS ELECTRONICALLY. 4. ALL THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE REVOLVE ARO UND DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54 OF THE ACT, WHICH HAS BE EN DISALLOWED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 5. THE FACTS IN BRIEF QUA THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE ARE TH AT THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH OTHER TWO CO-OWNERS, SOLD PROPE RTY LOCATED AT PANCHKULA (HARYANA) FOR A SALE CONSIDERATION OF 4,75,00,000/-. IN THE RETURN OF INCOME, THE ASSESSEE SHOWN 1/3 RD SHARE OF SALE CONSIDERATION IN THE PROPERTY AT 1,53,85,000/- AND CAPITAL GAIN OF 74,32,514/-, AGAINST WHICH EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54 OF 74,32,514/-WAS CLAIMED. DURING THE COURSE OF THE RE -ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT ACTUAL SALE C ONSIDERATION WAS OF 1,58,33,333/- AND THE AMOUNT OF 1,53,85,000/- WAS INADVERTENTLY DECLARED AS SALE CONSIDERATION IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ENTIRE AMOUNT OF CAPITAL GAIN ARISING ON THE SALE OF PANCHKULA PROP ERTY WAS 4 ITA NO. 2656/DEL./2017 INVESTED IN RESIDENTIAL HOUSE AT YOO PROJECT OF M/S EON HADSAPER INFRASTRUCTURE P LTD, PUNE, JOINTLY WITH A NOTHER TWO CO- OWNERS OF PANCHKULA PROPERTY I.E. MRS. JASWINDER KA UR AND MRS. HARSAWAR KAUR BEFORE 31/10/2012. THE AGREEMENT WITH THE SAID COMPANY WAS MADE ON 15/10/2012. THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ON 31/10/20 12 I.E. WITHIN THE TIME ALLOWED UNDER SECTION 139(4) OF THE ACT AND, THEREFORE, CLAIMED THAT SHE HAS COMPLIED WITH THE C ONDITIONS PRESCRIBED UNDER SECTION 54 OF THE ACT AND THEREFOR E SHE IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IN VIEW OF THE CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 471 AND 672, BOOKING OF FLAT IS TO BE CONSIDERED AS A CASE OF CO NSTRUCTION FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 54 OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE DEDUCTION UNDER S ECTION 54 OF THE ACT ON FOLLOWING GROUNDS: (I) THE AMOUNT OF CAPITAL GAIN HAS NEITHER BEEN INVESTE D IN PURCHASE OR CONSTRUCTION OF RESIDENTIAL HOUSE WI THIN THE STIPULATED PERIOD, NOR DEPOSITED IN CAPITAL GAI N SCHEME ACCOUNT WITHIN LIMIT PROVIDED SECTION 139(1) OF THE ACT. (II) THE BOOKING OF FLAT IS NOT PURCHASE OF FLAT BECAUSE AS PER AGREEMENT TO SALE, CONSTRUCTION OF THE FLAT WAS TO BE CARRIED OUT AND IT WAS NOT COMPLETED TILL COMPLETIO N OF ASSESSMENT. (III) THE BOOKING OF THE FLAT IS ALSO NOT CONSTRUCTION BE CAUSE UNDER CBDT CIRCULARS NO. 471 DATED 15/10/1986 AND NO. 672 DATED 16/10/1993, ALLOTMENT THROUGH BOOKING WAS CONSIDERED AS CONSTRUCTION OF RESIDENTIAL HOUSE IN 5 ITA NO. 2656/DEL./2017 THE CASE OF SELF FINANCING SCHEME OF DELHI DEVELOPM ENT AUTHORITY AND SIMILAR INSTITUTIONS SUCH AS HOUSING BOARD OF CENTRAL/STATE GOVERNMENTS ONLY AND NOT IN CASE OF PRIVATE BUILDER (IV) CONSTRUCTION OF THE FLAT IN QUESTION WAS NOT COMPLE TED AND THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT GOT POSSESSION OF THE FLAT TILL THE COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT AND THEREFORE ALSO IT WAS NOT CONSTRUCTION OF THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE WITHIN A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THE ORIGINAL ASSET. 5.1 THE LD. CIT(A) CONCURRED WITH THE FINDING OF THE A SSESSING OFFICER. SHE ALSO REJECTED THE FINDING OF THE LD. C OMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) IN THE CASE OF OTHER TWO CO-OW NERS I.E. MRS JASVINDER KAUR AND MRS HARSAWER KAUR. THE RELEVANT FINDING OF LD. CIT(A) IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 9.9 FURTHER, IT IS SEEN THAT APPELLANT HAS NOT REC EIVED THE POSSESSION TILL DATE NEITHER THE SALE DEED HAS BEEN EXECUTED. APPELLANTS CLAIM THAT AMOUNT HAS BEEN INVESTED BEF ORE THE FILING OF RETURN U/S 139(4) WILL MAKE HER ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPT ION DOES NOT ESTABLISH APPELLANTS CASE AS THE JUDGMENT OF HONB LE PUNJAB &'HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF JAGRITI AGGARWA L & OTHER, 15 TAXMAN.COM 146 HAVE TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE CONTEXT OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 54 WHEREAS IN THE CASE OF APP ELLANT, IT IS SEEN THAT APPELLANT HAS NOT RECEIVED THE POSSESSION TILL DATE NEITHER THE SALE DEED HAS BEEN EXECUTED. THE JUDGMENT OF HONBL E PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IS ONLY LIMITED TO THE ISSUE OF FURNISHING THE RETURN OF INCOME WITHIN THE EXTENDED TIME FOR FILIN G THE RETURN AS PER SECTION 139(4) AND IT DOES NOT PRESUPPOSE A SITUATI ON WHERE THE AGREEMENT HAS BEEN ENTERED AFTER THE PERIOD OF 2 YE ARS FROM THE DATE OF SALE OF PROPERTY. THEREFORE, THE JUDGMENT O F HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IS ON ITS OWN FACTS WHICH IS DIF FERENT FROM APPELLANTS CASE. THEREFORE, JUDGMENTS RELIED ON BY THE APPELLANT DOES NOT HELP HER AS THE PRIMARY / BASIC CONDITIONS TO CLAIMING EXEMPTION U/S 54 ARE NOT FULFILLED BY HER. I AM IN AGREEMENT WITH ASSESSING OFFICER THAT SECTION 54 NOWHERE PROVIDES THAT GRANT OF POSSESSION IS A MERE FORMALITY AND THAT THE PAYMENT S MADE WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME LIMITS WOULD BE SUFFICIENT TO C LAIM EXEMPTION U/S 54. FURTHER, IN THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE 6 ITA NO. 2656/DEL./2017 OF CIT VS. R.L. SOOD, 245 ITR 727, IT IS SEEN THAT JUDGMENT IS ON DIFFERENT FACTS. IN THAT CASE, POSSESSION WAS DELIV ERED AFTER THE PRESCRIBED DATE OF ONE YEAR AND THE SALE DEED WAS R EGISTERED THEREAFTER WHEREAS IN THE CASE OF APPELLANT, IT IS SEEN THAT POSSESSION HAS NOT BEEN HANDED OVER TILL DATE I.E. BEYOND THE PERIOD OF PRESCRIBED DATE AND SALE DEED HAS ALSO NOT BEEN EXECUTED TILL DATE. THEREFORE, IN SUCH A SITUATION, IF EXEMPTION U/S 54 IS ALLOWED THEN THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 54 BECOME OTIOSE AS NONE OF THE CONDITIONS HAVE BEEN FULFILLED EVEN AFTER THE PRESC RIBED DATE IS OVER. THOUGH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 54 AND SECTION 54F ARE BENEFICIAL PROVISIONS, PROVISIONS CANNOT BE INTERPRETED SO AS TO BE DETRIMENTAL OF THE INTENT OF THE PROVISIONS. HONBLE SUPREME CO URT IN THE CASE OF ORISSA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION VS. CIT, 237 I TR 589 HAVE HELD THAT A FISCAL STATUTE HAS TO BE INTERPRETED ON THE BASIS OF THE LANGUAGE USED THEREIN AND NOT DE HORS THE SAME. HON BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF IPCA LABORATORY LTD. VS. DCIT, 266 ITR 521 HAVE HELD THAT WHERE THERE IS NO AMBIGUITY IN THE P ROVISIONS OF STATUTE, PROVISIONS CANNOT BE INTERPRETED TO CONFER BENEFIT ON THE ASSESSEE AND BENEFITS WHICH ARE NOT AVAILABLE CANNO T BE CONFERRED BY IGNORING OR MISINTERPRETING CLEAR WORD IN THE SE CTION. IN MY VIEW, THE INTENT OF LEGISLATURE WAS NOT TO ALLOW EXEMPTIO N U/S 54 IF NONE OF THE CONDITIONS MENTIONED IN THE SECTION ARE FULFILL ED EVEN AFTER THE PRESCRIBED PERIOD OR OTHERWISE, THERE WAS NO REQUIR EMENT FOR SPECIFYING THE CONDITIONS FOR CLAIMING EXEMPTION U/ S 54 OR 54F. FACTS OF THE CASES RELIED ON BY THE APPELLANT ARE D IFFERENT. THEREFORE, IN MY VIEW, LEARNED CIT(A) HAS NOT EXAMINED THE FAC TS OF THE CASE IN THE CASE OF MRS. JASVINDER KAUR AND MRS. HARSAWER K AUR CAREFULLY AND, THEREFORE, I RESPECTFULLY DIFFER WITH HER AND HOLD THAT APPELLANT IS NOT ENTITLED TO THE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S 54. 6. BEFORE US, BOTH THE PARTIES APPEARED THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING FACILITY. THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE A SSESSEE FILED A PAPER-BOOK CONTAINING PAGES A-1 TO A-64 ALONG WITH COPIES OF FEW JUDGMENTS RELIED UPON BY HIM. 7. THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE REFERRED TO PR OVISIONS OF SECTION 54, 139 (1) AND 139 (4) OF THE ACT AND SUBM ITTED THAT THE FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(A) THAT PAYMENT/INVESTMENT M ADE AFTER DUE DATE OF FILING RETURN OF INCOME UNDER SECTION 139(1 ) OF THE ACT DOES NOT QUALIFY FOR EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54 OF THE ACT, IS NOT CORRECT. SHE SUBMITTED THAT IN VIEW OF THE VARIOUS DECISIONS, IF THE 7 ITA NO. 2656/DEL./2017 AMOUNT OF SALE CONSIDERATION IS ACTUALLY UTILIZED B Y THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF THE FURNISHING OF RETURN UND ER SECTION 139(4) OF THE ACT, THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT TO DEPOS IT THE AMOUNT IN CAPITAL GAIN SCHEME. ACCORDING TO HER, THE SECTI ON 139 REFERRED IN THE SECTION 54 WOULD INCLUDE ALL THE SUBSECTION THEREOF I.E. 139(1) AS WELL AS 139(4) OF THE ACT. FURTHER, SHE REFERRED TO PAGE A-56 AND A-57 TO 61 OF THE PAPERBOOK AND SUBMITTED THAT ENTIRE PAYMENT FOR PURCHASE OF THE FLAT FOR WHICH DEDUCTIO N HAS BEEN CLAIMED UNDER SECTION 54 OF THE ACT, WAS MADE BEFOR E DUE DATE OF FILING RETURN OF INCOME UNDER SECTION 139(4) OF THE ACT AND THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION UN DER SECTION 54 OF THE ACT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. SHE ALSO SUBMITT ED THAT SIMILAR CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54 OF THE ACT HAS BEEN ALLOWED BY THE RESPECTIVE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TA X (APPEALS) IN THE CASE OF MRS JASWINDER KAUR AND MRS HARSARWAR KAUR. IN SUPPORT OF THE CONTENTION THAT AMOUNT OF CAPITAL GA IN UTILIZED IN PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY WITHIN THE DUE DATE OF FIL ING RETURN UNDER SECTION 139(4) WOULD QUALIFY FOR DEDUCTION UN DER SECTION 54 OF THE ACT, THE LEARNED COUNSEL RELIED ON FOLLOWING DECISIONS: (A) PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS. SHANKAR LA L SAINI, (2018) 89 TAXMANN.COM 235 (RAJASTHAN). (B) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS MS. JAGRITI AGGARWAL (2011) 15 TAXMANN 146 (PUNJAB & HARYANA). (C) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS JAGTAR SINGH CHAWLA (2013) 33 TAXMANN.COM 38 (PUNJAB AND HARYANA). (D) FATIMA BAI VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ITA NO. 435 OF 20 04] (KARNATAKA) 8 ITA NO. 2656/DEL./2017 (E) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN IN CASE OF MUTHULETCHUMI JANARDHAHANAN. 8. AS FAR AS FINDING OF LEARNED CIT(A) THAT IN ABSENC E OF ACTUAL POSSESSION OF THE FLAT, THE EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54 CANNOT BE ALLOWED, THE LEARNED COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT DELAY I N RECEIPT OF POSSESSION WAS BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE ASSESSEE A ND THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE MADE TO SUFFER FOR DISALLOWA NCE UNDER SECTION 54 OF THE ACT, WHICH IS A BENEFICIAL SECTIO N AND FOR THAT PURPOSE ONLY THING TO BE ENSURED IS THAT CAPITAL GA INS CONSIDERATION ARISING ON SALE OF LONG-TERM CAPITAL ASSET ARE REINVESTED IN RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. SHE FURTHER SUB MITTED THAT EVEN AS PER SECTION 54 OF THE ACT, THERE IS NO REQU IREMENT THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE ACTUALLY RECEIVED THE PHYSICAL POSSESSION OF THE FLAT WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME LIMIT OF 2/3 YE ARS. 9. REGARDING THE FINDING OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) THAT C BDT CIRCULAR NO. 672 DATED 16/10/1993 AND CIRCULAR NO. 471 DATED 15/10/1986 ARE NOT APPLICABLE ON BOOKING OF FLAT WI TH PRIVATE BUILDER, THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMIT TED THAT VARIOUS COURTS IN FOLLOWING DECISIONS HAVE HELD THA T BOOKING OF FLAT WITH PRIVATE BUILDER IS TO BE CONSIDERED AS CASE OF CONSTRUCTION FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 54 OF THE ACT: (A) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS RL SOOD (2000) 108 TAXMAN 227 (DELHI) (B) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS MRS. HILLA JB WADIA (1995) 216 ITR 376 (BOMBAY) (C) RAM PRAKASH MIYAN BAZAZ VS. DCIT (2014) 45 TAXMANN.COM 550 (JAIPUR-TRIB) 9 ITA NO. 2656/DEL./2017 (D) SMT USHA VAID VS ITO (2012) 25 TAXMANN.COM 188 (AMITSAR-TRIB) 10. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LEARNED DR RELIED ON THE FIND ING OF LD. CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESS EE CONSTRUCTION WAS COMPLETED BEYOND THE PERIOD OF THE THREE YEARS I.E IN THE YEAR 2018 AND THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 54 OF THE ACT. 11. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSION OF THE PARTIES ON T HE ISSUE IN DISPUTE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON REC ORD, INCLUDING THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE PARTIES. IN THE IN STANT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54 OF THE ACT AGAINST BOOKING OF FLAT BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILI NG OF RETURN UNDER SECTION 139(4) OF THE ACT. THE CHRONOLOGICAL EVENTS OF SALE OF THE ORIGINAL ASSET AND INVESTMENT IN NEW RESIDENTIAL HO USE SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER: S.NO. PARTICULARS REMARK 1. SALE OF RESIDENTIAL HOUSE PROPERTY AT 211, SECTOR-6 , PANCHKULA 23.06.2010 CAPITAL GAIN ARISING THERE FROM 78,80,819 3. DATE OF AGREEMENT WITH M/S HADAPSAR INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. 15.10.2012 4. DUE DATE OF FILLING OF INCOME TAX RETURN U/S 139(1) 31.07.2012 5. DATE OF FILLING OF INCOME TAX RETURN BY ASSESSEE U/S 139(4) 31.10.2012 6. DUE DATE OF FILING OF INCOME TAX RETURN U/S 139(4) 31.03.2013 11.1 THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS DENIED THE DEDUCTION ON TWO GROUNDS. FIRSTLY, THE AMOUNT O F SALE 10 ITA NO. 2656/DEL./2017 CONSIDERATION HAS NOT BEEN INVESTED IN THE CAPITAL GAIN SCHEME, PRIOR TO DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN UNDER SECTION 139(1) OF THE ACT AND THEREFORE, ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTI ON UNDER SECTION 54 OF THE ACT. SECONDLY, CONSTRUCTION OF THE FLAT W AS NOT COMPLETED WITHIN THE PERIOD SPECIFIED IN SECTION 54 OF THE ACT I.E. THREE YEARS AFTER THE SALE OF THE PROPERTY AND THER EFORE, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED FOR THE DEDUCTION UNDER SE CTION 54 OF THE ACT. 11.2 AS FAR AS CONDITION OF DEPOSIT OF THE SALE CONSID ERATION IN CAPITAL GAIN SCHEME ACCOUNT IS CONSIDERED, THE RELE VANT PROVISION OF SECTION 54 IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: PROFIT ON SALE OF PROPERTY USED FOR RESIDENCE. 54. (1) .. (2) THE AMOUNT OF THE CAPITAL GAIN WHICH IS NOT APP ROPRIATED BY THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS THE PURCHASE OF THE NEW ASSET MADE WITHIN ONE YEAR BEFORE THE DATE ON WHICH THE TRANSFER OF THE O RIGINAL ASSET TOOK PLACE, OR WHICH IS NOT UTILISED BY HIM FOR THE PURC HASE OR CONSTRUCTION OF THE NEW ASSET BEFORE THE DATE OF FURNISHING THE RETURN OF INCOME UNDER SECTION 139 , SHALL BE DEPOSITED BY HIM BEFORE FURNISHING SUCH RETURN [SUCH DEPOSIT BEING MADE IN ANY CASE NOT LAT ER THAN THE DUE DATE APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR FUR NISHING THE RETURN OF INCOME UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 139 ] IN AN ACCOUNT IN ANY SUCH BANK OR INSTITUTION AS MAY BE SPECIFIED IN, AN D UTILISED IN ACCORDANCE WITH, ANY SCHEME WHICH THE CENTRAL GOVER NMENT MAY, BY NOTIFICATION IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE, FRAME IN T HIS BEHALF AND SUCH RETURN SHALL BE ACCOMPANIED BY PROOF OF SUCH DEPOSI T; AND, FOR THE PURPOSES OF SUB-SECTION (1), THE AMOUNT, IF ANY, AL READY UTILISED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PURCHASE OR CONSTRUCTION OF TH E NEW ASSET TOGETHER WITH THE AMOUNT SO DEPOSITED SHALL BE DEEM ED TO BE THE COST OF THE NEW ASSET : PROVIDED THAT IF THE AMOUNT DEPOSITED UNDER THIS SUB-SECTIO N IS NOT UTILIZED WHOLLY OR PARTLY FOR THE PURCHASE OR CONST RUCTION OF THE NEW ASSET WITHIN THE PERIOD SPECIFIED IN SUB-SECTION (1 ), THEN, (I) THE AMOUNT NOT SO UTILIZED SHALL BE CHARGED U NDER SECTION 45 AS THE INCOME OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH THE PERIOD OF THREE YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THE TRANSFER OF THE ORIGINAL ASSET EXPIRES; AND (II) THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE ENTITLED TO WITHDRAW SU CH AMOUNT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SCHEME AFORESAID. 11 ITA NO. 2656/DEL./2017 11.2.1 FOR THE PURPOSE OF ABOVE SECTION, THE DUE DATE FOR DEPOSIT UNDER THE CAPITAL GAIN HAS BEEN HELD AS DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN UNDER SECTION 139(4) ACT IN THE CASE OF PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS SHANKAR LAL SAINI (SUPRA). THE RELEVANT FINDING OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF R AJASTHAN IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 19. THE CONTENTION OF MR. SINGHI THAT UNDER SECTIO N 139, INVESTMENT IS TO BE MADE BEFORE THE RETURN IS FILED OTHERWISE IT WILL RENDER THE PROVISION NUGATORY IS TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE LIGHT THAT WHILE CONSIDERING THE CASE, KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN PARA NO. 6 & 7 (SUPRA) HAS CONSIDERED THE PROVISIONS AND INTERPRET ED THE SAME. EVEN THE SAME IS ACCEPTED BY THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AND GAUHATI HIGH COURT WHICH HAS TAKEN THE VIEW CON TRARY TO KERALA HIGH COURT DECISION. 20. IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER, THREE HIGH COURTS H AVE TAKEN THE VIEW AND THE TRIBUNAL HAS FOLLOWED THE KARNATAKA HIGH CO URT WHICH HAS FOLLOWED THE EARLIER GAUHATI JUDGMENT WHICH HAS BEE N INDEPENDENTLY SUPPORTED BY THE PUNJAB HARAYANA HIGH COURT. 11.2.2 IN THE ABOVE DECISION, HONBLE HIGH COURT OF RAJAS THAN HAS RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF FATIMA BIBI VS ITO (2009) 32 DTR 243 (KAR) , HONBLE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CAE OF JAGTAR SINGH CHAWALA (2013) 87 DTR 217 ( P & H) AND CIT VS JAGRITI AGGARWAL (SUPRA). THE RELEVANT FINDING OF HONBLE P UNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF JAGRITI AGGARWAL (SUPRA) HAS HELD THAT SUB-S. (4) OF S. 139 IS IN FACT, A PROVISO TO SUB-S . (1) AND PROVIDES FOR EXTENSION OF PERIOD OF DUE DATE FOR FI LING THE RETURN IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES AND, THEREFORE, EXEMPTION UND ER S. 54 WAS ALLOWABLE WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED NEW PROP ERTY BEFORE THE EXTENDED DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN AS PER S. 139(4) AND FILED 12 ITA NO. 2656/DEL./2017 RETURN WITHIN SUCH EXTENDED TIME. THE RELEVANT FINDING OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 5. IT MAY BE NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE SOLD HER RESID ENTIAL HOUSE ON 13TH JAN., 2006 FOR A SUM OF RS. 45 LACS AND PURCHA SED ANOTHER PROPERTY JOINTLY WITH MR. D.P. AZAD, HER FATHER-IN- LAW ON 2ND JAN., 2007 FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS. 95 LACS. THE DUE DA TE OF FILING OF RETURN AS PER S. 139(1) OF THE ACT WAS 31ST JULY, 2 006, BUT THE ASSESSEE FILED HER RETURN ON 28TH MARCH, 2007 AND T HAT EXTENDED DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN AS PER S. 139(4) IS 31 ST MARCH, 2007. 6. SEC. 54 OF THE ACT CONTEMPLATES THAT THE CAPITAL G AIN ARISES FROM THE TRANSFER OF A LONG-TERM CAPITAL ASSET, BUT IF T HE ASSESSEE WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR BEFORE OR TWO YEARS AFTER THE DA TE ON WHICH THE TRANSFER TOOK PLACE PURCHASES RESIDENTIAL HOUSE, TH EN INSTEAD OF THE CAPITAL GAIN, THE INCOME WOULD BE CHARGED IN TERMS OF PROVISIONS OF SUB-S. (1) OF S. 54. AS PER SUB-S. (2), IF THE AMOU NT OF CAPITAL GAINS IS NOT APPROPRIATED BY THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS THE PURCHA SE OF NEW ASSET WITHIN ONE YEAR BEFORE THE DATE ON WHICH THE TRANSFER OF THE ORIGINAL ASSET TOOK PLACE, OR WHICH IS NOT UTILIZED BY HIM FOR THE PURCHASE OR CONSTRUCTION OF THE NEW ASSET BEFORE TH E DATE OF FURNISHING THE RETURN OF INCOME UNDER S. 139, THE A MOUNT SHALL BE DEPOSITED BY HIM BEFORE FURNISHING SUCH RETURN NOT LATER THAN DUE DATE APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE FOR FURNISH ING THE RETURN OF INCOME UNDER SUB-S. (1) OF S. 139 IN AN ACCOUNT IN ANY SUCH BANK OR INSTITUTION AS MAY BE SPECIFIED. RELEVANT SUB-S. (2 ) OF S. 54 OF THE ACT READS AS UNDER : '(2) THE AMOUNT OF THE CAPITAL GAIN WHICH IS NOT AP PROPRIATED BY THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS THE PURCHASE OF THE NEW ASSET MADE WITHIN ONE YEAR BEFORE THE DATE ON WHICH THE TRANSFER OF THE O RIGINAL ASSET TOOK PLACE, OR WHICH IS NOT UTILIZED BY HIM FOR THE PURC HASE OR CONSTRUCTION OF THE NEW ASSET BEFORE THE DATE OF FURNISHING THE RETURN OF INCOME UNDER S. 139, SHALL BE DEPOSITED BY HIM BEFORE FURN ISHING SUCH RETURN SUCH DEPOSIT BEING MADE IN ANY CASE NOT LATE R THAN THE DUE DATE APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR FUR NISHING THE RETURN OF INCOME UNDER SUB-S. (1) OF S. 139 IN AN ACCOUNT IN ANY SUCH BANK OR INSTITUTION AS MAY BE SPECIFIED IN, AND UTILIZED IN ACCORDANCE WITH, ANY SCHEME WHICH THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT MAY, BY NOT IFICATION IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTEE, FRAME IN THIS BEHALF AND SUC H RETURN SHALL BE ACCOMPANIED BY PROOF OF SUCH DEPOSIT, AND FOR THE P URPOSES OF SUB-S. (1), THE AMOUNT, IF ANY, ALREADY UTILISED BY THE AS SESSEE FOR THE PURCHASE OR CONSTRUCTION OF THE NEW ASSET TOGETHER WITH THE AMOUNT SO DEPOSITED SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE THE COST OF THE NEW ASSET : 13 ITA NO. 2656/DEL./2017 PROVIDED THAT IF THE AMOUNT DEPOSITED UNDER THIS SU B-SECTION IS NOT UTILIZED WHOLLY OR PARTLY FOR THE PURCHASE OR CONST RUCTION OF THE NEW ASSET WITHIN THE PERIOD SPECIFIED IN SUB-S. (1), TH EN, (I) THE AMOUNT NOT SO UTILISED SHALL BE CHARGED UND ER S. 45 AS THE INCOME OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH THE PERIOD OF THREE YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THE TRANSFER OF THE ORIGINAL ASSET EXPI RES; AND (II) THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE ENTITLED TO WITHDRAW SUC H AMOUNT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SCHEME AFORESAID.' 7. THE QUESTION WHICH ARISES IS; WHETHER THE RETURN F ILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE EXPIRY OF THE YEAR ENDING WITH THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IS VALID UNDER S. 139(4) OF THE ACT ? 8. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE REVENUE HAS ARGUED THAT TH E ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO FILE RETURN UNDER SUB-S. (1) OF S. 139 OF THE ACT IN TERMS OF SUB-S. (2) OF S. 54 OF THE ACT. IT IS CONT ENDED THAT SUB-S. (4) IS NOT APPLICABLE IN RESPECT OF THE ASSESSEE SO AS TO AVOID PAYMENT OF LONG-TERM CAPITAL GAIN. 9. ON THE OTHER HAND, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPOND ENT RELIES UPON A DIVISION BENCH JUDGMENT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT I N FATHIMA BAI VS. ITO (2009) 32 DTR (KAR) 243 WHERE IN SOMEWHAT SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES, IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT TIME-LIMIT FOR DEPOSIT UNDER SCHEME OR UTILISATION CAN BE MADE BEFORE THE DUE DA TE FOR FILING OF RETURN UNDER S. 139(4) OF THE ACT. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT ALSO RELIES UPON A DIVISION BENCH JUDGMENT OF GAUHA TI HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. RAJESH KUMAR JALAN (2006) 206 CTR (GAU) 361 : (2006) 286 ITR 274 (GAU). 10. HAVING HEARD LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES, WE A RE OF THE OPINION THAT SUB-S. (4) OF S. 139 OF THE ACT IS, IN FACT, A PROVISO TO SUB- S. (1) OF S. 139 OF THE ACT. SEC. 139 OF THE ACT FI XES THE DIFFERENT DATES FOR FILING THE RETURNS FOR DIFFERENT ASSESSEES. IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE AS THE RESPONDENT, IT IS 31ST DAY OF JULY OF THE AS SESSMENT YEAR IN TERMS OF CL. (C) OF THE EXPLN. 2 TO SUB-S. (1) OF S . 139 OF THE ACT, WHEREAS SUB-S. (4) OF S. 139 PROVIDES FOR EXTENSION IN PERIOD OF DUE DATE IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES. IT READS AS UNDER : '(4) ANY PERSON WHO HAS NOT FURNISHED A RETURN WITH IN THE TIME ALLOWED TO HIM UNDER SUB-S. (1), OR WITHIN THE TIME ALLOWED UNDER A NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SUB-S. (1) OF S. 142, MAY FURNI SH 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 WHICHEVER IS EARLIER : 14 ITA NO. 2656/DEL./2017 PROVIDED THAT WHERE THE RETURN RELATES TO A PREVIOU S YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR COMMENCING ON THE 1ST DAY OF AP RIL, 1988 OR ANY EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR, THE REFERENCE TO ONE Y EAR AFORESAID SHALL BE CONSTRUED AS A REFERENCE TO TWO YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR.' 11. A READING OF THE AFORESAID SUB-SECTION WOULD SHOW THAT IF A PERSON HAS NOT FURNISHED THE RETURN OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR WITHIN THE TIME ALLOWED UNDER SUB-S. (1) I.E., BEFORE 31ST DAY OF JULY OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR, THE ASSESSEE CAN FILE RETURN BEFOR E THE EXPIRY OF ONE YEAR FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YE AR. 12. THE SALE OF THE ASSET HAVING TAKEN PLACE ON 13TH J AN., 2006, FALLING IN THE PREVIOUS (SICASSESSMENT) YEAR 2006- 07, THE RETURN COULD BE FILED BEFORE THE END OF RELEVANT ASST. YR. 2007-08 (SIC 2006-07) I.E. 31ST MARCH, 2007. THUS, SUB-S. (4) OF S. 139 PROVIDES EXTENDED PERIOD OF LIMITATION AS AN EXCEPTION TO SU B-S. (1) OF S. 139 OF THE ACT. SUB-S. (4) IS IN RELATION TO THE TIME ALLO WED TO AN ASSESSEE UNDER SUB-S. (1) TO FILE RETURN. THEREFORE, SUCH PR OVISION IS NOT AN INDEPENDENT PROVISION, BUT RELATES TO TIME CONTEMPL ATED UNDER SUB-S. (1) OF S. 139. THEREFORE, SUCH SUB-S. (4) HAS TO BE READ ALONG WITH SUB-S. (1). SIMILAR IS THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE DIVISI ON BENCH OF KARNATAKA AND GAUHATI HIGH COURTS IN FATIMA BAI AND RAJESH KUMAR JALAN CASES (SUPRA) RESPECTIVELY. 13. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE FIND THAT DUE DATE FOR FU RNISHING THE RETURN OF INCOME AS PER S. 139(1) OF THE ACT IS SUB JECT TO THE EXTENDED PERIOD PROVIDED UNDER SUB-S. (4) OF S. 139 OF THE A CT. 11.2.3 FURTHER, THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARY ANA IN THE CASE OF JAGTAR SINGH CHAWLA (SUPRA) HAS HELD THAT THE UNUTILIZED PORTION OF THE CAPITAL GAIN ON THE SALE OF PROPERTY USED FOR RESIDENCE SHOULD BE DEPOSITED BEFORE THE DATE O F FURNISHING THE RETURN OF THE INCOME TAX UNDER SECTION 139 OF THE A CT AND THAT WOULD INCLUDE EXTENDED PERIOD TO FILE RETURN IN TER MS OF SUB SECTION 4 OF SECTION 139 OF THE ACT. THE RELEVANT FINDING OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 9. A DIVISION BENCH OF THIS COURT IN WHICH ONE OF US (HEMANT GUPTA, J.) WAS A MEMBER, HAD AN OCCASION TO CONSIDER THE P ROVISIONS OF SECTION 54(2) OF THE ACT, WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT SUB- SECTION(4) 15 ITA NO. 2656/DEL./2017 OF SECTION 139 OF THE ACT IS IN FACT A PROVISO TO S ECTION 139(1) OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS INVESTED THE SALE PROCEEDS IN A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE WITHIN THE EXTENDED PERIOD OF L IMITATION, THE CAPITAL GAIN IS NOT PAYABLE. THE JUDGMENTS IN RAJES H KUMAR JALANS CASE AND FATHIMA BAIS CASE (SUPRA) WERE REFERRED TO. IT HAS BEEN HELD AS UNDER:- 'HAVING HEARD LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES, WE A RE OF THE OPINION THAT SUB-SECTION (4) OF SECTION 139 OF THE ACT IS, IN FACT, A PROVISO TO SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 139 OF THE ACT. SECTION 139 OF THE ACT FIXES THE DIFFERENT DATES FOR FILING THE RETURNS FOR DIFF ERENT ASSESSES. IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE AS THE RESPONDENT, IT IS 31ST DAY OF JULY, OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IN TERMS OF CLAUSE (C) OF THE EXPLA NATION 2 TO SUB- SECTION 1 OF SECTION 139 OF THE ACT, WHEREAS SUB-SE CTION (4) OF SECTION 139 PROVIDES FOR EXTENSION IN PERIOD OF DUE DATE IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES. IT READS AS UNDER:- '(4) ANY PERSON WHO HAS NOT FURNISHED A RETURN WITH IN THE TIME ALLOWED TO HIM UNDER SUB-SECTION (1), OR WITHIN THE TIME ALLOWED UNDER A NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SUB- SECTION (1) OF SEC TION 142, MAY FURNISH THE RETURN FOR ANY PREVIOUS YEAR AT ANY TIM E BEFORE THE EXPIRY OF ONE YEAR FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASS ESSMENT YEAR OR BEFORE THE COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT WHICHEVER I S EARLIER; PROVIDED THAT WHERE THE RETURN RELATES TO A PREVIOU S YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR COMMENCING ON THE 1ST DAY OF AP RIL, 1988, OR ANY EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR, THE REFERENCE TO ONE Y EAR AFORESAID SHALL BE CONSTRUED AS A REFERENCE TO TWO YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR.' A READING OF THE AFORESAID SUB-SECTION WOULD SHOW T HAT IF A PERSON HAS NOT FURNISHED THE RETURN OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR W ITHIN THE TIME ALLOWED UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) I.E. BEFORE 31ST DAY OF JULY OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR, THE ASSESSEE CAN FILE RETURN BEFOR E THE EXPIRY OF ONE YEAR FROM THE END OF EVER RELEVANT ASSESSMENT Y EAR.' 10. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS PROVED TH E PAYMENT OF SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF SALE CONSIDERATION FOR PURCHA SE OF A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY ON OR BEFORE 31.3.2008, THAT I S WITHIN EXTENDED PERIOD OF LIMITATION OF FILING OF RETURN. ONLY A SU M OF RS.24 LACS WAS PAID OUT OF TOTAL SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS. TWO CRO RES ON 23.4.2008, THOUGH POSSESSION WAS DELIVERED TO THE ASSESSEE ON EXECUTION OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY ON 30.3.2008. SINCE THE ASSESSEE, HAS ACQUIRED A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE BEFORE THE END OF THE NEXT FINANC IAL YEAR IN WHICH SALE HAS TAKEN PLACE, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE IS NO T LIABLE TO PAY ANY CAPITAL GAIN. SUCH IS THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL. 16 ITA NO. 2656/DEL./2017 11.3 IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, THE AGREEMENT TO PUR CHASE OF FLAT HAS BEEN MADE ON 15/10/2012. THE ASSESSEE HAS PROVIDED DETAIL OF PAYMENTS MADE, WHICH ARE AVAILABLE ON PAG E A-56 OF THE PAPER-BOOK, AND SAME ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER: PARTICULARS DATE MODE OF PAYMENT AMOUNT (IN RS.) INVESTMENT IN YOO PROJECT 5.02.2010 CHEQUE NO. 153816 BEFORE THE DUE DATE U/S 139(1) 700,000 INVESTMENT IN YOO PROJECT 18.5.2011 RTGS BEFORE THE DUE DATE U/S 139(1) 60, 83,200 AMOUNT PAID FOR STAMP DUTY ON REGISTRATION OF AGREEMENT TO SELL 16.7.2012 CHEQUE NO. 35875 ENTRY IN BANK STATEMENT 7, 50,000 INVESTMENT IN YOO PROJECT 29.8.2012 RTGS 14,16,800 TOTAL: 89,50,000 11.3.1 ON PERUSAL OF THE PAPER-BOOK PAGES A-57 TO A-61, I T IS ALSO EVIDENT THAT THE ALL ABOVE PAYMENT HAVE BEEN C LEARED FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE DUE DAT E OF THE FILING OF RETURN UNDER SECTION 139(4) OF THE ACT WHICH WAS 31/03/2013 IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. 11.4 AS THE INVESTMENT IN PROPERTY HAS BEEN MADE PRIOR TO DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME UNDER SECTION 13 9 (4) OF THE ACT I.E 31/03/2013, THEREFORE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING TH E DECISION OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT REPRODUCED ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE DENIED DEDUCTION ON THE GROUND THAT AMOUNT OF SALE CONSIDERATION HAS NOT BEEN INVESTED IN CAPITAL GAIN ACCOUNT SCHEME BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF THE FILI NG OF RETURN UNDER SECTION 139(1) OF THE ACT. 17 ITA NO. 2656/DEL./2017 11.5 FURTHER, AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 54 FOR ELIGIBILITY OF DEDUCTION, THE ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED TO PURCHASE OR CONSTRUCT ONE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE IN INDIA WITHIN FOLLOWING PERIODS : - PURCHASE OF RESIDENTIAL HOUSE WITHIN ONE YEAR BEFOR E OR TWO YEARS AFTER THE DATE ON WHICH THE TRANSFER OF ORIGI NAL ASSET TOOK PLACE OR - CONSTRUCTION OF RESIDENTIAL HOUSE WITHIN THREE YEAR S AFTER THE DATE OF TRANSFER OF ORIGINAL ASSET 11.6 THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT INVESTMENT IN FLAT IS E QUIVALENT TO CONSTRUCTION OF RESIDENTIAL HOUSE AND SINCE INVESTM ENT HAS BEEN MADE WITHIN THREE YEARS FROM TRANSFER OF THE ORIGIN AL ASSET THEREFORE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION UNDER S ECTION 54 OF THE ACT. THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMIT TED THAT THE CBDT IN THE CIRCULAR NO. 471 DATED 15/10/1986 AND C IRCULAR NO. 672 DATED 16/10/1993 HAS CONSIDERED BOOKING OF THE FLAT AS CONSTRUCTION FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 54 OF THE A CT, WHEREAS ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED DR, THOSE CIRCULARS ARE ON LY APPLICABLE TO BOOKING OF FLATS UNDER SELF FINANCING SCHEMES OF DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND SIMILAR INSTITUTIONS. FOR READY REFERENCE, THE AFORESAID CIRCULAR NO. 471, DATED 15 .10.1986 IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: CIRCULAR NO. 471 DATED 15TH OCTOBER, 1986 CAPITAL GAINS TAXWHETHER INVESTMENT IN A FLAT UNDER THE SELF-FINANCING SCHEME OF THE DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY WOULD BE CONSTRUCTIO N FOR THE PURPOSE OF SS. 54 AND 54F OF THE IT ACT, 1961 CAPITAL GAINS SECTION 54 18 ITA NO. 2656/DEL./2017 SECTION 54F SECS. 54 AND 54F OF THE IT ACT, 1961, PROVIDE THAT CAPITAL GAINS ARISING ON TRANSFER OF A LONG-TERM CAPITAL ASSET SHALL NOT BE CHARGED TO TAX TO THE EXTENT SPECIFIED THEREIN, WHERE THE AMOUNT OF CAPITAL GAIN IS INVESTED IN A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. IN THE CASE OF PURCHASE OF A HOUSE, THE BENE FIT IS AVAILABLE IF THE INVESTMENT IS MADE WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR BEFO RE OR AFTER THE DATE ON WHICH THE TRANSFER TOOK PLACE AND IN CASE OF CONSTR UCTION OF A HOUSE, THE BENEFIT IS AVAILABLE IF THE INVESTMENT IS MADE WITH IN THREE YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THE TRANSFER. 2. THE BOARD HAD OCCASION TO EXAMINE AS TO WHETHER TH E ACQUISITION OF A FLAT BY AN ALLOTTEE UNDER THE SELF-FINANCING SCHEME OF T HE DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AMOUNTS TO PURCHASE OR ITS CONSTRUCTION B Y THE DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ON BEHALF OF THE ALLOTTEE. UNDER THE SELF -FINANCING SCHEME OF THE DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY THE ALLOTMENT LETTER IS ISSUED ON PAYMENT OF THE FIRST INSTALMENT OF THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION. THE A LLOTMENT IS FINAL UNLESS IT IS CANCELLED OR THE ALLOTTEE WITHDRAWS FROM THE SCHEME . THE ALLOTMENT IS CANCELLED ONLY UNDER EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES. THE ALLOTTEE GETS TITLE TO THE PROPERTY ON THE ISSUANCE OF THE ALLOTMENT LETTER AN D THE PAYMENT OF INSTALMENTS IS ONLY A FOLLOW-UP ACTION AND TAKING T HE DELIVERY OF POSSESSION IS ONLY A FORMALITY. IF THERE IS A FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY TO DELIVER THE POSSESSION OF THE FLAT AFT ER COMPLETING THE CONSTRUCTION, THE REMEDY FOR THE ALLOTTEE IS TO FILE A SUIT FOR R ECOVERY OF POSSESSION. 3. THE BOARD HAVE BEEN ADVISED THAT UNDER THE ABOVE C IRCUMSTANCES, THE INFERENCE THAT CAN BE DRAWN IS THAT THE DELHI DEVEL OPMENT AUTHORITY TAKES UP THE CONSTRUCTION WORK ON BEHALF OF THE ALLOTTEE AND THAT THE TRANSACTION INVOLVED IS NOT A SALE. UNDER THE SCHEME, THE TENTA TIVE COST OF CONSTRUCTION IS ALREADY DETERMINED AND THE DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHOR ITY FACILITATES THE PAYMENT OF THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION IN INSTALMENTS SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS THAT THE ALLOTTEE HAS TO BEAR THE INCREASE, IF ANY, IN THE COST OF THE CONSTRUCTION. THEREFORE, FOR THE PURPOSE OF CAPITAL GAINS TAX, TH E COST OF THE NEW ASSET IS TENTATIVE COST OF CONSTRUCTION AND THE FACT THAT TH E AMOUNT WAS ALLOWED TO BE PAID IN INSTALMENTS DOES NOT AFFECT THE LEGAL POSIT ION STATED ABOVE. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, IT HAS BEEN DECIDED THAT CASES OF ALLO TMENT OF FLATS UNDER THE SELF- FINANCING SCHEME OF THE DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY SHALL BE TREATED AS CASES OF CONSTRUCTION FOR THE PURPOSE OF CAPITAL GA INS. 11.6.1 THE RELEVANT PART OF THE CIRCULAR NO. 672 IS REP RODUCED AS UNDER: ATTENTION IS INVITED TO BOARD'S CIRCULAR NO. 471, DATED 15TH OCTOBER, 1986 (F. NO. 207/27/85-ITA.II) [PUBLISHED IN (1987) 59 CTR (ST) 19]. IT WAS CLARIFIED THEREIN THAT CASES OF ALLOTMENT OF FLATS UNDER THE SELF FINANCING SCHEME OF THE DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (DDA) SHOULD 19 ITA NO. 2656/DEL./2017 BE TREATED AS CASES OF CONSTRUCTION FOR THE PURPOSE S OF SECTIONS 54 AND 54F OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT. THE BOARD HAS SINCE RECEIVED REPRESENTATIONS THAT EVEN IN RESPECT OF ALLOTMENT O F FLATS/HOUSES BY CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES AND OTHER INSTITUTIONS, WHOS E SCHEMES OF ALLOTMENT AND CONSTRUCTION ARE SIMILAR TO THOSE OF DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, A SIMILAR VIEW SHOULD BE TAKEN. 2. THE BOARD HAS CONSIDERED THE MATTER AND HAS DECIDE D THAT IF THE TERMS OF THE SCHEMES OF ALLOTMENT AND CONSTRUCTION OF FLATS/HOUSES BY THE C-OOPERATIVE SOCIETIES OR OTHER INSTITUTIONS ARE SIMILAR TO THOSE MENTIONED IN PARA 2 OF BOARD'S CIRCULAR NO. 471, DA TED 15TH OCTOBER, 1986, SUCH CASES MAY ALSO BE TREATED AS CA SES OF CONSTRUCTION FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTIONS 54 AND 54 F OF THE INCOME- TAX ACT. 11.6.2 REGARDING APPLICABILITY OF THE CIRCULARS FOR BOO KING OF FLATS, THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF RL SOOD (SUPRA) HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER: 2. THE ASSESSEE WAS THE OWNER OF A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE WHICH HE SOLD ON 22ND SEPT., 1981, FOR A TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS. 2,75,000. ON 25TH SEPT., 1981, HE ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT F OR PURCHASE OF A RESIDENTIAL FLAT AND BY SEPTEMBER, 1982 PAID A SUM OF RS. 2,39,850 TO THE BUILDER OF THE SAID FLAT. THE ACTUAL POSSESS ION WAS DELIVERED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 17TH FEB., 1983 AND THE SALE DEED I N HIS FAVOUR WAS REGISTERED ON 26TH FEB., 1985. 3. DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FO R THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, THE AO BROUGHT THE DIFFERENCE BETW EEN THE SALE PRICE OF THE RESIDENTIAL FLAT SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF THE SAID HOUSE TO TAX AS CAPITAL GAI NS ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO SATISFY THE CONDITI ONS LAID DOWN IN S. 54(1) OF THE ACT INASMUCH AS HE HAD FAILED TO PURCH ASE THE FLAT WITHIN THE STIPULATED PERIOD OF ONE YEAR. THE ASSES SEES APPEAL TO THE CIT (A) WAS UNSUCCESSFUL. 4. THE ASSESSEE TOOK THE MATTER IN FURTHER APPEAL TO THE TRIBUNAL, WHO TOOK THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAVING PURCHASE D THE NEW FLAT WITHIN ONE YEAR OF THE SALE OF HIS OLD RESIDENTIAL HOUSE, THE PROVISIONS OF S. 54(1) OF THE ACT STOOD SATISFIED A ND, THEREFORE, NO INCOME BY WAY OF CAPITAL GAINS COULD BE TAXED IN TH E HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE REVENUES APPLICATION UNDER S. 256(1) HAVING BEEN DISMISSED BY THE TRIBUNAL THE PRESENT PETITION HAD BEEN FILED. 20 ITA NO. 2656/DEL./2017 5. WE HAVE HEARD MR. SANJIV KHANNA, THE LEARNED SENIO R STANDING COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. 6. IN OUR VIEW THE TRIBUNAL WAS JUSTIFIED IN DECLININ G TO MAKE A REFERENCE ON THE PROPOSED QUESTION TO THIS COURT. A DMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID A SUM OF RS. 2,39,850 OUT OF THE TOTAL SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 2,75,000 FOR PURCHASE OF FLAT WITHIN THE PERIOD OF ONE YEAR FROM THE DATE OF SALE OF HIS OLD RESIDE NTIAL HOUSE. THUS, ON PAYMENT OF A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT IN TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT OF PURCHASE DT. 25TH SEPT., 1981, I.E., WITHIN FOUR DA YS OF THE SALE OF HIS OLD PROPERTY, THE ASSESSEE ACQUIRED SUBSTANTIAL DOMAIN OVER THE NEW RESIDENTIAL FLAT WITHIN THE SPECIFIED PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AND COMPLIED WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF S. 54. MERELY BEC AUSE THE BUILDER FAILED TO HAND OVER POSSESSION OF THE FLAT TO THE A SSESSEE WITHIN THE PERIOD OF ONE YEAR, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE DENIED T HE BENEFIT OF THE SAID BENEVOLENT PROVISION. THIS WOULD NOT BE IN CON SONANCE WITH THE SPIRIT OF S. 54 OF THE ACT. 7. WE MAY NOTE THAT REALISING THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULT Y FACED BY THE ASSESSEE IN SUCH SITUATIONS, THE CBDT ISSUED A CIRC ULAR NO. 471, DT. 15TH OCT., 1986, CLARIFYING THAT WHEN THE DDA ISSUE S THE ALLOTMENT LETTER TO AN ALLOTTEE UNDER ITS SELF-FINANCING SCHE ME, ON PAYMENT OF FIRST INSTALMENT OF COST OF CONSTRUCTION, THE ALLOT TEE GETS TITLE TO THE PROPERTY AND SUCH ALLOTMENT SHOULD BE TREATED AS CO ST OF CONSTRUCTION FOR THE PURPOSE OF CAPITAL GAINS. ON T HE SAME ANALOGY, THE ASSESSEE HAVING BEEN ALLOTTED THE FLAT, HE HAVI NG PAID A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT TOWARDS ITS COST WITHIN THE STIP ULATE PERIOD OF ONE YEAR, HE CANNOT BE DENIED THE BENEFIT OF THE SA ID SECTION BECAUSE THE FLAT PURCHASED BY HIM HAD COME INTO HIS FULL DOMAIN WITHIN THE PERIOD OF ONE YEAR, THOUGH THE SALE DEED IN HIS FAVOUR WAS REGISTERED SUBSEQUENTLY 11.6.3 FURTHER, REGARDING ELIGIBILITY OF DEDUCTION 54 OF THE ACT FOR BOOKING OF FLAT WITH PRIVATE BUILDERS, THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF RAMPRAKSH MIYAN BAZAZ (SUPRA) HAS HELD AS UNDER: '11. NOW COMING TO A CONCOMITANT SITUATION THAT IF BOOKING OFFLATS DOES NOT TANTAMOUNT TO OWNERSHIP OF THE HOUSE THEN HOW COME THE ASSESSEE CLAIM THAT BY BOOKING A FLAT IT HAS ACQUIR ED 'NEW HOUSE' AND BECOMES ENTITLE FOR THIS EXEMPTION. SIMILAR SIT UATIONS REPEATEDLY AROSE AND TO SETTLED THEM, THE CBDT ISSUED A CIRCUL AR NO. 471 DATED 15/10/1986 CLARIFYING THAT PAYMENT MADE TO A BUILDE R/DEVELOPER IS A SUFFICIENT COMPLIANCE FOR EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE ACT. ID. CIT(A) HAS GONE BY SHEER TECHNICALITIES TO HOLD THAT THE FLAT AT EMAAR-MGF, GURGAON IS NOT COVERED UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE ACT. TO MEET SUCH RECURRENCE OF SITUATIONS IN THE MODERN DA YS WHERE PROPERTIES ARE BOOKED AND THEREAFTER PURCHASED, THE CBDT IN THEIR 21 ITA NO. 2656/DEL./2017 WISDOM FURTHER CLARIFIES VIDE CIRCULAR NO. 672 DATE D 16/12/1993 THAT IF ANY AMOUNT OUT OF NET SALE CONSIDERATION OF THE ORIGINAL ASSET IS PAID TO ANY BUILDER OR DEVELOPER, THIS AMOUNT SH OULD BE CONSIDERED TOWARDS THE TERMS 'PURCHASE/CONSTRUCT' F OR THE PURPOSE OF SECTIONS 54/54F OF THE ACT. IT IS NOT DISPUTED B Y THE REVENUE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MADE PAYMENT FOR PURCHASE OF R ESIDENTIAL HOUSE IN GURGAON IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE CLARIFICATION S OF CBDT, THIS IS ENOUGH COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISION OF SECTION 54F O F THE ACT AND THE ASSESSEE BECAME ENTITLED TO THIS EXEMPTION. 12. WE HAVE FOUND THAT SECTION 54F OF THE ACT IS A BENEFICIAL PROVISION AIMED AT PROMOTING EXISTENCE OF NEW RESID ENTIAL HOUSES TO FURTHER THE NEEDS OF THE SOCIETY. THUS, THE INTENTI ON OF THE LEGISLATOR IS TO ENCOURAGE INVESTMENT IN THE ACQUISITION OF RE SIDENTIAL HOUSES AND SECTION 54F OF THE ACT PRESCRIBES AND PROSCRIBE S THE CONDITIONS FOR AVAILING ITS BENEFIT. THE TERMS/WORDS USED IN T HIS SECTION HAVE BEEN VERY SELECTIVELY & PRUDENTIALLY USED BY THE LE GISLATURE. THIS BENEFIT IS AGAINST THE CAPITAL GAIN ARISING OUT OF TRANSFER OF ANY LONG TERM CAPITAL ASSET NOT BEING A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE AN D WHICH HAS BEEN REFERRED TO AS AN 'ORIGINAL ASSET' SUBJECT TO A CON DITION THAT IF THE 'NET- SALE-CONSIDERATION' IS INVESTED EITHER IN PURCHASIN G/CONSTRUCTING A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE OR IN CONSTRUCTING THE SAME WITHI N THE PERIOD PRESCRIBED IN THIS SECTION. HOWEVER, IF THE ASSESSE E OWNED MORE THAN ONE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE OTHER THAN THE NEW ASSET ON THE DATE OF TRANSFER OF THE ORIGINAL ASSET, THIS BENEFIT IS NOT AVAILABLE TO HIM. IN THE GIVEN CASE, UNDISPUTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD A CAPITAL ASSET IN THE FORM OF LAND ON 03/10/2008 AND EARNED LONG T ERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS. 2,03,76,237/- (THIS LTCG HAS BEEN CALCU LATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT RS. 2,04,37,654/-) AS THERE WA S SOME ERROR IN THE COMPUTATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH THE RETU RN BECAUSE IN THE INDEXING OF THE COST OF LAND IN F. Y. 1991-92, THE ASSESSEE'S HALF SHARE WAS NOT CONSIDERED. THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54F (L)(B) OF THE ACT TO THE EXTENT O F RS. 1,26,52,789/- AS AGAINST TOTAL INVESTMENT OFRS. 1,29,66,275/-. TH US, BY NOW WE HAVE COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE DID N OT OWN MORE THAN ONE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE ON THE DATE OF TRANSFER OF THE ORIGINAL ASSET. THEREFORE, ONE CONDITION OF THIS PROVISION S TANDS SATISFIED. 11.7 IN THE INSTANT CASE ALSO, THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE E NTIRE PAYMENT WITHIN THE PERIOD OF THREE YEARS FROM THE D ATE OF THE TRANSFER OF ORIGINAL ASSET, AND THEREFORE, THE AMOU NT HAS TO BE TREATED AS INVESTED IN PURCHASE/CONSTRUCTION. THE P ROVISIONS OF SECTION 54 NOWHERE PRESCRIBE CONSTRUCTION OF THE HO USE SHOULD BE COMPLETED. THE PRIME REQUIREMENT IS INVESTMENT IN N EW 22 ITA NO. 2656/DEL./2017 RESIDENTIAL HOUSE WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED PERIOD. THU S, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF RAMPRAKASH MIYAV BAZAZ (SUPRA), WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S COMPLIED THE PROVISION OF SECTION 54 OF THE ACT IN SUBSTANCE AND THEREFORE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING REJECTION OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54 OF THE ACT. 11.8 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE SET ASIDE THE FINDING OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE AND DIRE CT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW THE DEDUCTION CLAIM UNDE R SECTION 54 OF THE ACT. THE GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED. 12. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOW ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 10 TH FEBRUARY, 2021 SD/- SD/- (AMIT SHUKLA) (O.P. KANT) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 10 TH FEBRUARY, 2021. RK/- (D.T.D.S.) COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI