Law v. Income Tax Officer,Wherein Tnedivision Bencn Held Tnat The Contention Of The Revenue Tnat
High Court
14 Nov 2018 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · karnataka_bng_old
Parties
Law v. Income Tax Officer,Wherein Tnedivision Bencn Held Tnat The Contention Of The Revenue Tnat
Date of order
14 Nov 2018
Assessment year(s)
2004-05
Outcome
Allowed
Case summary
In Law v. Income Tax Officer,Wherein Tnedivision Bencn Held Tnat The Contention Of The Revenue Tnat, the High Court (2018) allowed the appeal under Section 54B of the Income-tax Act. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Issue: Aggrieved by the same, tne present appeal is |filed by the assessee., 2.|By the order dated 22.11.2011, the appeal wasadmitted to consider the following substantial question of law: “ Whether the finding of the Tribunal thatthere is no compliance of provisions ofSection 139(4) of the Act eventhough.reinvestment is made...
Decision: Consequently, the order of theTribunal is set aside.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU|ON THE 14 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH|
AND|
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN)
INCOME TAX APPEAL No.11 of ZJO1
BEI|WEE
SHRI.H. HANUMANTHAPPA, No.224, 4 CROSS,T BLOCK,BASAVESHWARANAGAR,|4 STAGE,BANGALORE - 560 079,
APPELLANT|
(BY SRI A. SHANKAR & M. LAVA, ADVOCATES)
AND
THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER,WARD 8(3), 3 FLOOR, |JEEVAN SAMPIGE BUILDING,SAMPIGE ROAD, |MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE - 560 OO3.
.., RESPONDENT
(BY SRI K.V. ARAVIND, ADVOCATE)
THISINCOME|TAX.APPEAL|ISFILED|UNDERSECTION 260-A OF I.T.ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER|DATED 02-09-2010 PASSED IN ITA No.681/BANG/2010,.FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05, PRAYING [TQFORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW.STATED THEREIN AND ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET|ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ITAT, BANGALORE IN |ITA No.681/BANG/2010, DATED OQ2-09-2010 TO THEEXTENT HELD AGAINST THE APPELLANT, IN THE INTEREST.OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS INCOME TJTAXK APPEAL COMING ON FHEARING THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH, J., DELIVERED THE.FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The appellant is an individual deriving income fromcommission agency in vegetables. He was also aneagriculturistgrowingvegetablesananadCOCONUT|plantations. He filed his return of income as an individual|for the Assessment Year 2004-05 declaring total income of Rs.45,000/-. Subsequently, he filed a revised return ofincome under the head ‘income from other sources’ and|income from capital gains on the land acquired by)Bangalore Development Authority ( BDA’ for snort). He.claimed exemption under Section 54B of the Income Tax|
Act, 1961 (Act’ for short). That the land was originally|purchased for a sum of Rs.1,61,055/-. He incurred an!amount of Rs.2,10,000/- as ‘improvement expenses Dy|drilling bore-well etc., Tne land was acquired by the BDA|for a sum of Rs.11,93,0/6/-. Thereafter, he computed|capital gains of Rs.4,60,204/- and claimed exemption|under Section 54B of the Act as ‘investment on agriculturalland. The Assessing Officer re-computed the total incomeand assessed the same at Rs.4,44,550/- as against the|declaration of income by the assessee as Rs.45,000/-.Aggrieved by the same, an appeal was filed before theCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II, Bangalore. The)appeal was partly allowed. The First Appellate Authority|directed the Assessing Officer to withdraw an amount of)Rs.3,00,000/- from the exemption claimed under Section.54B of tne Act, since the sale consideration has been paidafter filing of the return of income and partial relief was|granted insofar as the cost of improvement is concerned. |Aggrieved by the same, an appeal was preferred before|
the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Bangalore|Bench, Bangalore. Tne Appellate Tribunal partly allowed.the appeal. Aggrieved by the same, tne present appeal is |filed by the assessee.,
2.|By the order dated 22.11.2011, the appeal wasadmitted to consider the following substantial question of
law:
“ Whether the finding of the Tribunal thatthere is no compliance of provisions ofSection 139(4) of the Act eventhough.reinvestment is made within three years:from the end of the financial years in which|the transaction took place on 6.8.2003, is'perverse and arbitrary?
3.Learned counsel for the appellant contends tnat thequestion of law is since covered by the judgment of thisCourt reported in)(2009) 32 DIR Juagments 243|in thecase of.Fathima Bali vs. Income Tax Officer,wherein tneDivision Bencn held tnat the contention of the Revenue tnat
the deposit in the scheme should have been made beforethe initial due date and not the extended due date, was anuntenable contention. Therefore, the appeal was allowed infavour of the assessee.
4Under the circumstances, since the substantial|question of law is covered by the aforesaid judgment, tnesame is accordingly answered in favour of the assessee andagainst the Revenue. Consequently, the order of theTribunal is set aside. The appeal is accordingly disposedoff.
SD/-JUDGE|
SD/-|JUDGE
mv|CT:AM
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.