Chabubai Krishna Bankar, Pune V. Income-tax Officer, Ward - 8(4), Pune

ITA 619/PUN/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8558 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-12-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 09-04-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M K VERMA
• Keywords: Capital asset; Cost of acquisition; Valuation report; Capital receipt
• Section: 143(3); 54B; 54F; 142(1); 133A; 234B; 147; 148; 54; 139

Judgement Text

- IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH SMC, PUNE , BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM . / ITA NO.617/PUN/2018 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 UDDHAV KRISHNA BANKAR, L/H OF LATE SMT. TARABAI K. BANKAR, BANKAR VASTI, MOSHI, PUNE 412 105 PAN : BCSPB6726P . / APPELLANT VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD8(4), PUNE . / RESPONDENT . / ITA NO.618/PUN/2018 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 PARSHURAM UDDHAV BANKAR, BANKAR VASTI, MOSHI, PUNE 412 105 PAN : ALFPB2910C . / APPELLANT VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD8(4), PUNE . / RESPONDENT . / ITA NO.619/PUN/2018 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 CHABUBAI KRISHNA BANKAR, BANKAR VASTI, MOSHI, PUNE 412 105 PAN : BCSPB6727N . / APPELLANT VS. ITA NOS. 617 TO 622/PUN/2018 UDDHAV KRISHNA BANKAR AND OTHERS 2 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD8(4), PUNE . / RESPONDENT . / ITA NO.620/PUN/2018 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 SHANTABAI KRISHNA BANKAR, BANKAR VASTI, MOSHI, PUNE 412 105 PAN : BCSPB6729C . / APPELLANT VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD8(4), PUNE . / RESPONDENT . / ITA NO.621/PUN/2018 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 ASHWINI PARSHURAM BANKAR, BANKAR VASTI, MOSHI, PUNE 412 105 PAN : BCSPB6575L . / APPELLANT VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD8(4), PUNE . / RESPONDENT . / ITA NO.622/PUN/2018 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 SUMITRA UDDHAV BANKAR, BANKAR VASTI, MOSHI, PUNE 412 105 PAN : BCSPB6730K . / APPELLANT VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD8(4), PUNE . / RESPONDENT ITA NOS. 617 TO 622/PUN/2018 UDDHAV KRISHNA BANKAR AND OTHERS 3 / APPELLANT(S) BY : NONE / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI M.K. VERMA DATE OF HEARING : 26.12.2018 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 31.12.2018 / ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM: THE ABOVE SIX APPEALS FILED BY DIFFERENT ASSESSEES ARE AGAINST SEPARATE ORDERS OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) 13 , PUNE COMMONLY DATED 07.02.2018 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 AGAI NST ORDERS PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S.147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). 2. THIS BUNCH OF APPEALS OF RELATED PARTIES ON SIMI LAR ISSUE WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OFF BY THIS CONSOLI DATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 3. THE ONLY ISSUE RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPEALS IS AGAINST THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME FROM LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AND CONNECTED ISSUE OF DENIAL OF EXEMPTION UNDER SECTIO N 54B OF THE ACT. 4. THE FACTS AND ISSUE IN ALL THE APPEALS ARE SIMIL AR. HOWEVER, FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, I REFER TO THE FACTS AND ISSUES IN THE CASE OF UDDHAV KRISHNA BANKAR IN ITA NO.617/PUN/2018. ITA NO.617/PUN/2018 FOR A.Y. 2012-13 : 5. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL : 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED AO AND LD. CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN ASSESSING INCOME OF RS.40 ,13,943/- AS AGAINST INCOME AS PER RETURN OF RS.20,79,010/- AND ADDITION OF RS.19,34,933/- ON ITA NOS. 617 TO 622/PUN/2018 UDDHAV KRISHNA BANKAR AND OTHERS 4 ACCOUNT OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. THE ADDITION MA DE TO THE EXTENT OF RS.19,34,933/- AS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN SHOULD BE DELETED. 2. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUND NO.1 THE AO AND LD. CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN TREATING AMOUNT O F RS.19,34,933/- AS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN SHOULD BE DELETED. 3. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUND NO.2, THE FACT THAT THE RELEVANT DETAILS OF THE CLAIM U/S.54B ARE AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE. HENCE THE CLAIMING OF EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54(B) IS VALID AS PER LAW. 4. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN CHARGING INTEREST UNDER SECTIONS 234A, 234B AND 234C WHEN IN FACT THERE WAS NO DEFAULT AS CONTEMPLATED BY THE SAID SECTIONS. 5. THE APPELLANT HAS NOT CONCEALED ANY INCOME AND I T IS PRAYED THAT THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S.271(1) INITIATED BY THE AO SHOULD BE DROPPED. 6. APPELLANT IS GENUINE IN THE EYE OF LAW AND HENCE APPELLANT PRAYS FOR JUST & EQUITABLE RELIEF. 7. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD TO, ALTER , AMEND, MODIFY, SUBSTITUTE, DELETE AND/OR RESCIND ALL OR ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL ON OR BEFORE THE FINAL HEARING, IF NECESSITIES SO A RISES. 8. APPELLANT PRAYS LEAVE TO ADDUCE SUCH EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CASE. 6. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING . HOWEVER, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. ON THE PERUSAL OF THE RECORD, ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE APPELLATE ORDER, IT IS APPARENT THAT THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS COVERED BY THE ORDER OF HONBLE BOMBAY HI GH COURT IN THE CASE OF HUMAYUN SULEMAN MERCHANT VS. CCIT (2016) 73 TAXMANN .COM 2 (BOM.). FURTHER, SIMILAR ISSUE RELYING ON THE DECISION OF H ONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE PUNE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL (WHE RE JUDICIAL MEMBER IS A PARTY) IN ITA NO.923/PUN/2015 RELATING TO ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2009-10 IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. VILAS BALRAM PATIL VIDE ORDER DATED 20-12-2017. 7. BRIEFLY IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE ASSESSEE H AD NOT FURNISHED ANY RETURN OF INCOME IN THE STIPULATED PERIOD OF TIME. SURVEY ACTION UNDER SECTION 133A OF THE ACT WAS CONDUCTED IN THE CASE OF M/S. P HARANDE PROMOTERS AND BUILDERS. DURING THE SURVEY PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS NO TICED THAT THE SAID CONCERN HAD PURCHASED THE LAND AT PLOT NUMBER 725 AND 731 L OCATED AT BORHADEWADI, ITA NOS. 617 TO 622/PUN/2018 UDDHAV KRISHNA BANKAR AND OTHERS 5 MOSHI FOR A TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS.3,22,50,000/- ON 12-10-2011. THE SAID LAND WAS PURCHASED FROM SMT.TARABAI KRISHNA BANKAR, I.E. THE ASSESSEE AND HER SHARE CONSIDERATION WAS RS.42,20,000/-; AND OTH ER FAMILY MEMBERS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO NOTED THAT SHE DID NOT OFFER ANY CAPITAL GAINS ARISING OUT OF THE SALE OF THE SAID LAND FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2011-12. THEREFORE, REASONS WERE RECORDED FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SE CTION 147 AND NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 29-02-20 16. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE ANY RESPONSE TO THE SAID NOTI CE. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE CASE WAS ASSIGNED TO ITO, WARD 8(4), PUNE UNDER SECTION 120(5) OF THE ACT BY THE COMMISSIONER. DUE TO CHANGE IN INCUMBENT, NOTICE U NDER SECTION 142(1) READ WITH SECTION 129 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSES SEE ON 04-07-2016. IN RESPONSE THERETO, THE ASSESSEE FILED SUBMISSIONS ON 14-07-2016. THE SUBMISSION INCLUDED COPY OF INCOME-TAX RETURN FOR T HE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012- 13 ALONG WITH COMPUTATION OF INCOME, SALE DEED OF T HE PROPERTY, BANK STATEMENT AND ALSO THE ASSESSEE FILED COPY OF AGRICULTURAL LA ND PURCHASED AT MHASKEWADI, AHMEDNAGAR AND SUBMITTED COPY OF FERFAR PATRAK AND 7/12 EXTRACT OF THE SAME. THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE FILED A LETTER DATED 29-11- 2016 STATING THAT THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED IN RES PONSE TO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT. THUS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER TREATED FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME AS FILED ON 29-11-2016 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.20 ,79,010/-. THEREAFTER, NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2)/ 142(1) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ASKING FOR VARIOUS INFORMATION. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT COMPLY W ITH THE SAID NOTICE OR FURNISHED ANY INFORMATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER N OTED THAT THE RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS AN INVALID RETURN AND IN THE SAME IT HAD SHOWN CAPITAL RECEIPT ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF LAND TO PHARANDE PROMOTERS AN D BUILDERS. THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO FURNISHED VALUATION REPORT IN SUPPORT OF I TS COST OF ACQUISITION AS ON 01-04-1981 AND THE CAPITAL GAINS WERE COMPUTED AT R S.40,13,938/-. THE ITA NOS. 617 TO 622/PUN/2018 UDDHAV KRISHNA BANKAR AND OTHERS 6 ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54B OF THE ACT ON PURCHASE OF LAND AT MHASKEWADI ON 26-08-2013, I.E. AFTER THE DU E DATE OF FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME AND CLAIMED THE AFORESAID DEDUCTION UNDER SE CTION 54B OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE THOUGH WAS ONE OF THE PURCHASERS OF THE SA ID LAND, BUT HAD NOT SPECIFIED HOW THE PURCHASE CONSIDERATION WAS PAID. THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO NOT FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF PAYMENT AS WELL AS CAP ITAL GAINS SCHEME ACCOUNT DETAILS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAD PURCHASED THE LAND AFTER DUE DATE OF FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME AND T HE REQUIREMENT OF LAW WAS THAT THE SALE CONSIDERATION HAD TO BE DEPOSITED IN THE C APITAL GAINS ACCOUNT BY THE DUE DATE OF RETURN OF INCOME. SINCE THE ASSESSEE H AD NOT FURNISHED ANY DETAILS THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54B OF THE AC T WAS DISALLOWED. 8. THE CIT(A) NOTED THE DETAILS OF SALE CONSIDERATI ON AND THAT THE CO- OWNERS REINVESTED IN PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AND HAVE TABULATED THE SAME UNDER PARA NO.5.1 AT PAGE 5 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER. THE CIT(A) ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD DISALLOWED THE DEDUC TION CLAIMED UNDER SECTION 54B OF THE ACT IN VIEW OF THE VIOLATION OF SECTION 54B(2) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD THE LAND TO PHARANDE PROMOTERS AN D BUILDERS ON 12-10- 2011 AND HAD MADE THE INVESTMENT IN NEW AGRICULTURA L LAND ON 26-08-2013. THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH HER OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS HA D INVESTED IN THE NEW LAND. THE SAID DEED WAS SILENT ABOUT THE CONTRIBUT ION OF EACH OF THEM INDIVIDUALLY AND MERELY MENTIONED THE WHOLE CONSID ERATION AT RS.2,22,66,000/-. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT INVESTED THE CAPITAL GAI NS UNUTILIZED UPTO THE DATE OF FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME UNDER SECTION 139 OF THE ACT, IN THE APPROVED CAPITAL GAIN ACCOUNT SCHEME, WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE ON 31-07-2012, THE CIT(A) HELD THAT THERE WAS VIOLATION OF PROVISI ONS OF SECTION 54B(2) OF THE ACT. HENCE, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION ITA NOS. 617 TO 622/PUN/2018 UDDHAV KRISHNA BANKAR AND OTHERS 7 54B(1) OF THE ACT. IN THIS REGARD, RELIANCE WAS PL ACED ON THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF HUMAYU N SULEMAN MERCHANT VS. CCIT (2016) 73 TAXMANN.COM 2 (BOM.). THUS, THE ORD ER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS UPHELD BY THE CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 9. DESPITE SERVICE OF NOTICE, NONE APPEARED ON BEHA LF OF THE ASSESSEE. BUT THE ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE RATIO LAID DOW N BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF HUMAYUN SULEMAN MERCHANT VS. CCIT (SUPRA) WHICH ORDER WAS FURTHER APPLIED BY THE PUNE BENCH O F THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF VILAS BALRAM PATIL (SUPRA) AND THE SAID DECISI ON IS SQUARELY APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. 10. THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IS ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 WHEREIN THE RETURN OF INCOME UNDER SECTION 139(1) HAD TO BE FIL ED BY THE ASSESSEE BY 31-07-2012 AND UNDER SECTION 139(4) OF THE ACT BY 3 1-03-2013. THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD THE LAND VIDE SALE DEED DATED 12-10-2011. THE SHARE IN SALE CONSIDERATION AS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS RS.42 ,20,000/-. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSEE INVESTED IN AGRICULTURAL LAND ALONG WITH O THER FAMILY MEMBERS AND THE SAID INVESTMENT WAS MADE ON 26-08-2013. AFTER SURV EY ON M/S. PHARANDE PROMOTERS AND BUILDERS WHO HAD PURCHASED THE PROPER TY FROM THE ASSESSEE AND HER OTHER CO-OWNERS, REASONS WERE RECORDED FOR RE-OPENING THE ASSESSMENT AND NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 29-02-2016. IT IS THEREAFTER THE ASSES SEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING INCOME FROM CAPITAL GAINS AT RS.20 ,79,01/-. THIS RETURN WAS FILED ON 29-11-2016. THERE IS NO DISPUTE WITH REGA RD TO THE SALE CONSIDERATION, COST OF ACQUISITION AND THE CAPITAL GAIN ARISING IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THE DISPUTE WHICH ARISES IS AGAINST THE CL AIM OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER ITA NOS. 617 TO 622/PUN/2018 UDDHAV KRISHNA BANKAR AND OTHERS 8 SECTION 54B(1) OF THE ACT. THE SAID SECTION ENTITL ED THE ASSESSEE TO CLAIM THE DEDUCTION IN CASE THE SALE PROCEEDS OF AGRICULTURAL LAND ARE REINVESTED IN ANOTHER AGRICULTURAL LAND WITHIN A PERIOD OF TWO YE ARS. HOWEVER, SECTION 54B(2) LAYS DOWN THAT IN CASE THE SALE PROCEEDS ARE NOT IN VESTED, WITHIN THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME U/S.139 OF THE ACT, T HEN THE SALE PROCEEDS NEED TO BE PARKED IN THE CAPITAL GAINS SCHEME ACCOUNT TILL IT IS UTILIZED FOR THE PURCHASE OF THE NEW AGRICULTURAL LAND. IN THE CASE OF THE A SSESSEE WHERE SHE HAD SOLD THE LAND ON 12-10-2011 AND WHERE HER RETURN OF INCO ME WAS DUE BY 31-07- 2012, THE REQUIREMENT OF THE LAW WAS THAT SHE SHOUL D HAVE PARKED THE FUNDS IN CAPITAL GAINS SCHEME ACCOUNT. HOWEVER, NO SUCH INV ESTMENT WAS MADE IN THE CAPITAL GAINS SCHEME ACCOUNT. BEFORE THE CIT(A), T HE ASSESSEE IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS, COPY OF WHICH IS PLACED ON RECORD HAD RELIED ON THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN HUMAYUN SU LEMAN MERCHANT VS. CCIT (SUPRA) TO POINT OUT THAT LIBERAL/BENEFICIAL I NTERPRETATION/CONSTRUCTION IS TO BE GIVEN TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 54 OF THE ACT IN ORDER TO BOOST THE INVESTMENT IN HOUSING SECTOR. THOUGH, ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS UTILIZED THE AMOUNT FOR THE PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND WI THIN THE PERIOD OF TWO YEARS, BUT AFTER THE DUE DATE OF FILING THE RETURN OF INCO ME. THE CIT(A) WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE HAS REFERRED TO THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS F ILED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH ARE REPRODUCED AT PAGES 3 AND 4 OF THE APPELLATE OR DER. THEREAFTER, THE CIT(A) REFERS TO THE DELIBERATION OF THE HONBLE HIGH COUR T IN HUMAYUN SULEMAN MERCHANT VS. CCIT (SUPRA) WHEREIN THEY HAVE INTERPR ETED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 54F(1) AND 54F(4) OF THE ACT AND HAVE LAID DOWN THAT SECTION 54F(4) OF THE ACT SPECIFICALLY PROVIDES THAT THE AMOUNT WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN INVESTED EITHER IN PURCHASE OR CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSE, HAVE T O BE DEPOSITED IN THE SPECIFIED ACCOUNTS BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING TH E RETURN OF INCOME UNDER SECTION 139 OF THE ACT. IT FURTHER GOES ON TO HOLD THAT WHEN THERE IS NO ITA NOS. 617 TO 622/PUN/2018 UDDHAV KRISHNA BANKAR AND OTHERS 9 AMBIGUITY IN THE PROVISIONS OF LAW, WHICH IS SUBJEC T TO INTERPRETATION, THEN THERE IS NO OCCASION TO GIVE BENEFICIAL CONSTRUCTION TO A STATUTE. REFERENCE IS MADE TO PARA NO.6 (S) OF THE SAID SECTION. THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT INTURN RELIES ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE GAUHATI HIGH COUR T IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RAJESH KUMAR JALAN (2006) 286 ITR 274 WHICH LAID DO WN THE PROPOSITION THAT AMOUNTS SUBJECT TO CAPITAL GAINS ON SALE OF CAPITAL ASSET FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXEMPTION, HAD TO BE UTILIZED BEFORE THE DATE OF FI LING THE RETURN OF INCOME AND SINCE THE SAME WAS NOT UTILIZED FOR THE PURPOSE OF INVESTMENT IN CONSTRUCTION OF THE NEW HOUSE NOR WAS DEPOSITED IN THE CAPITAL GAIN S SCHEME ACCOUNT; HENCE, THE ASSESSEE WAS HELD TO BE NOT ENTITLED TO THE CLA IM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE ACT. IT MAY BE POINTED OUT THAT IN THE AFORESAID CASE, THE SAID DEDUCTION WAS RESTRICTED TO THE INVESTMENT IN THE N EW ASSET AT RS.35 LAKHS. RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT ARE REP RODUCED BY THE CIT(A) AT PAGES 6 TO 8 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER WHICH ARE BEING REFERRED TO BUT NOT BEING REPRODUCED FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY. 11. THE SAID PROPOSITION LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE B OMBAY HIGH COURT HAS BEEN APPLIED BY THE PUNE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN T HE CASE OF SHRI VILAS BALRAM PATIL (SUPRA). VIDE PARA NO.7 OF THE ORDER DATED 20-12-2017, THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54 OF THE ACT WAS DENIED TO THE ASSESSEE AS HE HAD NOT DEPOSITED THE AMOUNT IN THE CAPITAL GAINS SCHEM E ACCOUNT BY THE DUE DATE OF FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME. 12. IN VIEW THEREOF AND APPLYING THE AFORESAID RATI O, I HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED TO CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE ACT AS THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DEPOSIT THE UNUTILIZED AMOUN T OF CAPITAL GAINS IN THE CAPITAL GAINS SCHEME ACCOUNT BY THE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME. SINCE ITA NOS. 617 TO 622/PUN/2018 UDDHAV KRISHNA BANKAR AND OTHERS 10 THIS ISSUE IS SETTLED BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, HENCE, THE MATTER IS BEING DECIDED EX PARTE THE ASSESSEE. GROUNDS OF AP PEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE THUS DISMISSED. ITA NOS.618 TO 622/PUN/2018 : 13. THE FACTS AND ISSUE RAISED IN THE ABOVE APPEALS ARE SIMILAR TO THE FACTS AND ISSUE RAISED IN ITA NO.617/PUN/2018 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. ACCORDINGLY, MY DECISION IN ITA NO.617/PU N/2018 WOULD APPLY MUTATIS MUTANDIS TO ITA NOS.618 TO 622/PUN/2018. 14. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS OF THE RESPECTIV E ASSESSEES ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 31 ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2018. SD/- (SUSHMA CHOWLA) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE DATED : 31 ST DECEMBER, 2018 SATISH / COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT; 2. / THE RESPONDENT; 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A)-13, PUNE 4. / THE PR.CIT-5, PUNE 5. 6. , , , - / DR SMC, ITAT, PUNE; / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY, , / ITAT, PUNE ITA NOS. 617 TO 622/PUN/2018 UDDHAV KRISHNA BANKAR AND OTHERS 11 DATE 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 27-12-18 SR.PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 31-12-18 SR.PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER. AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS SR.PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON SR.PS 7. DATE OF UPLOADING ORDER SR.PS 8. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK SR.PS 9. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 10. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE A.R. 11. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER.