Commissioner of Income-tax, Chennai v. Umayal Annamalai
[Citation -2020-LL-0722-8]

Citation 2020-LL-0722-8
Appellant Name Commissioner of Income-tax, Chennai
Respondent Name Umayal Annamalai
Court HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 22/07/2020
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags capital gains account scheme • residential property • benefit of exemption • filing of return • audit objection • belated return • new property • due date
Bot Summary: For Appellant : Mr. J. Narayanasamy Sr. Standing Counsel For Respondent(s): Mr.N.Quadir Hoseyn ORDER The Court was held by Video Conference, as per the Resolution of the Full Court dated 3 July 2020, by Judges at their respective residences and the counsel, staff of the Court appearing from their respective residences. Heard Mr.J.Narayanaswamy, learned Senior Standing counsel appearing for the appellant Department and Mr.N.Quadir Hoseyn, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. The Revenue has filed the present appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, purportedly raising the following substantial questions of law for consideration. The learned Commissioner of Income tax relied on the legal provision and submissions of the assessee exhaustively with judicial decisions. In Order dt.22.7.2020 in TCA No.456 of 2017 the opinion that the Commissioner of Income Tax has rightly construed the findings and the explanation of the assessee with observation in his order and allowed the deduction u/s.54F of the Act. We are not inclined to interfere with the order of Commissioner of Income Tax and dismiss the ground of the Revenue. Though the Revenue stake involved in the present case is much below the limit of rupees one crore for withdrawal of the appeal by the Revenue, since the present case involved some audit objection because of exemption in the said Circular, the learned counsel for the Revenue press the appeal on merits.


Order dt.22.7.2020 in TCA No.456 of 2017 IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 22.07.2020 CORAM HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI & HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY T.C.A.No.456 of 2017 Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai. ... Appellant Vs. Smt. Umayal Annamalai .. Respondent Prayer: Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260-A of Income Tax Act, 1961 against order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Madras Bench, dated 22.04.2016 in ITA.No.415/Mds/2015. For Appellant : Mr. J. Narayanasamy Sr. Standing Counsel For Respondent(s): Mr.N.Quadir Hoseyn ORDER (Delivered by Dr.Vineet Kothari, J.) Court was held by Video Conference, as per Resolution of Full Court dated 3 July 2020, by Judges at their respective residences and counsel, staff of Court appearing from their respective residences. 1/6 http://www.judis.nic.in Order dt.22.7.2020 in TCA No.456 of 2017 2. Heard Mr.J.Narayanaswamy, learned Senior Standing counsel appearing for appellant Department and Mr.N.Quadir Hoseyn, learned counsel appearing for respondent. 3. Revenue has filed present appeal under Section 260-A of Income Tax Act, purportedly raising following substantial questions of law for consideration. 1. Whether on facts and in circumstances of case tribunal was right and justified in granting exemption u/s 54F when unutilised portion of sale proceeds were not deposited in capital gains account scheme before due date for filing of return u/s 139(1)? 2. Whether on facts and in circumstances of case tribunal was right in interpreting provisions of section 54F to conclude that assessee is entitled for exemption ignoring ration of decisions reported in 197 taxman 52?' 4. learned Tribunal, with regard to exemption under Section 54 F(1) of Act, with respect to capital gains earned by assessee during previous year, has given following finding of facts in paragraph 8 and relevant portion of paragraph 8 is quoted hereunder; ' assessee has complied provisions considering dates 2/6 http://www.judis.nic.in Order dt.22.7.2020 in TCA No.456 of 2017 as under:- (i) Date of transfer of original asset : 14.2.2005 (Ii) date of filing of return : 17.3.2006 (iii) Due date of return for Assessment year 2005-06 : 31.07.2005 (iv) Due date of filing belated return : 31.03.2007 (v) Possession of property : 15.12.2007 "On considering provisions of law and facts of case, assessee has invested Rs.68,00,000/-before due date of filing belated return i.e. 31.03.2007 and took possession as per findings of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on 15.12.2007, being within three years from date of transfer/sale of original asset being 14.02.2005. assessee has not invested in Capital Gain Account Scheme before 139(1) of Act but complied with conditions u/s.54F(1) of Act by purchasing and construction of residential property within three years from date of transfer of original asset which is not disputed in assessment proceedings or in appellate proceedings. provisions of Sec. 54F are beneficial provisions and are to be considered liberally in aspect of limitation period. But investment in residential property is must which assessee has proved with evidence and complied before lower authorities. learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) relied on legal provision and submissions of assessee exhaustively with judicial decisions. Considering factual aspects, genuineness of transactions and beneficial aspects of provisions, we are of 3/6 http://www.judis.nic.in Order dt.22.7.2020 in TCA No.456 of 2017 opinion that Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has rightly construed findings and explanation of assessee with observation in his order and allowed deduction u/s.54F of Act. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and dismiss ground of Revenue.' 5. Though Revenue stake involved in present case is much below limit of rupees one crore for withdrawal of appeal by Revenue, since present case involved some audit objection because of exemption in said Circular, learned counsel for Revenue press appeal on merits. 6. However, after hearing both learned counsel, we are satisfied that finding of facts arrived at by learned Tribunal are perfectly in order and justified and correct on basis of facts stated in quoted paragraph 8 of order. assessee has clearly satisfied conditions for availing benefit of exemption under section 54F of Act, as it has purchased new property and has taken possession within stipulated period of three years, as aforesaid. Thus, we do not find any perversity in said findings of facts given by learned Tribunal. 4/6 http://www.judis.nic.in Order dt.22.7.2020 in TCA No.456 of 2017 7. Therefore, in our opinion, no substantial question of law arises in present appeal filed by Revenue and it is without any merits. Accordingly, appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. [V.K.,J.] [K.R.,J.] 22.07.2020 msr/kpl Index:yes/no internet;yes/no To Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai. 5/6 http://www.judis.nic.in Order dt.22.7.2020 in TCA No.456 of 2017 DR. VINEET KOTHARI, J. & KRISHNAN RAMASAMY,J. Msr T.C.A.No.456 of 2017 22.07.2020 6/6 http://www.judis.nic.in Commissioner of Income-tax, Chennai v. Umayal Annamalai
Report Error