IT Appeal No. 176 of 2011. Case: Commissioner of Income-tax-II, Chandigarh Vs Ms. Jagriti Aggarwal. High Court of Punjab (India)

Case NumberIT Appeal No. 176 of 2011
CounselFor Appellant: Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Adv. And For Respondents: Ms. Radhika Suri, Adv.
JudgesHemant Gupta and G.S. Sandhawalia, JJ.
IssueIncome Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 139, 139(1), 139(4), 142, 142(1), 44, 45, 54
Judgement DateOctober 03, 2011
CourtHigh Court of Punjab (India)

Order:

Hemant Gupta, J.

  1. Revenue is in appeal aggrieved against an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for short the 'the Tribunal') on 13.8.2010 in respect of Assessment Year 2006-2007. The Revenue has claimed the following substantial question of law, as arisen from the order of the Tribunal:

    Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in aw the ITAT was justified in allowing the benefit of exemption under Section 44 of the Income tax Act by wrongly interpreting Section 54 of the I.T. Act in which the due date for furnishing the return of income is mentioned as per Section 139(1) and not as per Section 139(4) of the Act?

  2. The assessee sold her house property for Rs. 45 lacs and claimed deduction under Section 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'). The assessee was served with a notice under Section 142(1) of the Act, as to why the amount deducted be not added to her income as long term capital gain, as the assessee failed to deposit the amount in Capital Gain Account Scheme and also failed to purchase house property before the due date of filing the return of income. The assessee contested the claim of the Revenue and asserted that she is not liable to deposit the amount in Capital Gain Deposit Scheme and that the due date of filing the return of income tax is not as specified in Section 139(1) but as specified in Section 139(4) of the Act. The Assessing officer declined the claim of the assessee and returned finding that the assessee has concealed her particulars of income and initiated proceedings for penalty as well.

  3. The appeal against the said order was accepted by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). It was found that the appellant has purchased new residential property on 2.1.2007 and the due date as per Section 139(4) is 31.3.2007 and thus, the assessee has complied with the provisions of Section 54 of the Act. It was held that Section 139 includes Sub Section (4) as well. The said order of the Commissioner of Income Tax has been affirmed in appeal as well.

  4. It may be noticed that the assessee sold her residential house on 13.1.2006 for a sum of Rs. 45 lacs and purchased another property jointly with Mr. D. P. Azad, her father-in-law on 2.1.2007 for a consideration of Rs. 95 lacs. The due date of filing of return as per Section 139(1) of the Act was 31.7.2006, but the assessee filed her return on 28.3.2007 and that extended due date of filing of...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT