I did not put the unused capital gain into the capital gains account scheme by the due date under section 139(1). Have I lost the section 54 exemption?
Not necessarily. The Gauhati High Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal and upheld the exemption for the whole gain of Rs 29,73,048. Section 54(2) requires the unutilised gain to be deposited before the date of furnishing the return of income under section 139, and section 139 there cannot mean only section 139(1); it means all the sub-sections, including sub-section (4). So an assessee who utilises the gain before the time allowed by section 139(4) has complied. The Court applied the settled rules that a beneficial provision is construed to advance its purpose and that no words are to be added to a plain provision.
Decided by the High Court (Gauhati High Court - D. Biswas and T. Nandakumar Singh, JJ; judgment by T. Nandakumar Singh, J) on 2006-08-09, reported as [2006] 286 ITR 274 (Gauhati); (2006) 206 CTR (Gau) 361. It bears on section 54, section 54(2), section 139(4), section 2(47)(v) of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Capital Gains and Capital Gains Exemptions matters.
This is the decision practitioners cite for the extended window under section 54 and section 54F, and it is followed widely. The reasoning is textual and therefore portable: the sub-section names section 139 without qualification, while the words in the bracketed portion about the capital gains account scheme deposit refer specifically to the due date under sub-section (1), so the legislature plainly knew how to confine the reference when it wanted to; reading section 139 as section 139(1) would attribute redundancy to Parliament, which Santosh Shankar Acharya forbids. It also gives a second, independent ground for cases of this kind, since the Tribunal had held that where the whole gain has been appropriated to the new asset within the section 54(1) period, section 54(2) never comes into play at all.
Binding within that High Court's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
The assessee, an individual in the business of plying trucks, sold his one-fourth share in a residential property known as Jalal House at Rehabari, Guwahati, to the Government of Meghalaya for Rs 40,00,000 by sale deed dated 21 December 1995. Against an indexed cost of Rs 10,26,925 the capital gain was Rs 29,73,048, which was not in dispute. He decided in February 1996 to buy Flat No. 4B on the fourth floor of a building at Ballygunge Park Road, Calcutta, from Radha Krishna Jalan and Anguri Devi Jalan, who held half each, and entered into agreements dated 9 May 1996 and 17 May 1996 for Rs 15 lakh with each, Rs 30 lakh in all, together with a car parking space, taking physical possession in May 1996. The Assessing Officer refused the exemption on the footing that what the assessee had taken was only a sub-lease and not a purchase, and that he had not deposited the unappropriated gain in the Capital Gains Deposit Scheme 1988 by the due date under section 139(1). The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the transaction was a transfer within section 2(47)(v) but allowed the exemption only to the extent of Rs 14,43,254 utilised up to 31 August 1996, directing tax on the balance of Rs 15,29,794. Both sides appealed, and the Tribunal by common order of 18 April 2001 allowed the assessee's appeal and dismissed the Revenue's.
The question, whether the assessee was entitled to the benefit of section 54 on the entire amount received, was answered in the positive. The Tribunal's order was not interfered with and the appeal was dismissed, the parties bearing their own costs. On a plain reading of section 54(2) the reference is to section 139 without qualification, and section 139 cannot be taken to mean only section 139(1) but means all its sub-sections. Under section 139(4) a person who has not filed within the time allowed may furnish the return at any time before the expiry of one year from the end of the relevant assessment year or before completion of the assessment, whichever is earlier, and the assessee could satisfy the requirement of section 54 up to that date.
The Court began from the character of the provision. Section 54 is a beneficial provision, enacted with the constitutional goal of providing residence to citizens in view, and in construing a beneficial enactment the reading that advances its object is to be preferred to one that obstructs it, following Kunal Singh. It then read section 54(2) as it stands: the unutilised gain is to be deposited before the date of furnishing the return of income under section 139. Nothing confines that to sub-section (1). Applying Santosh Shankar Acharya, every part of a statute is enacted for a purpose, the legislature is deemed not to waste its words, and a construction attributing redundancy is not accepted without compelling reason; and applying Bhavnagar University, a statutory enactment is construed according to its plain meaning, with no words added, altered or modified unless plainly necessary to prevent absurdity or unworkability. Section 139(4) therefore supplies the operative date. The Tribunal, whose order was upheld, had reached the same result by a different route: the assessee had entered into the agreements and taken possession within a year of the sale, which is a transfer under clause (v) of section 2(47) read with section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, and having acquired the flat for Rs 30 lakh against a gain of Rs 29,73,048 he had appropriated the whole gain within the section 54(1) period, so there was no occasion to comply with section 54(2) at all. The Tribunal had also relied on the Kerala High Court in K.C. Gopalan for the proposition that the statute does not require the very sale proceeds to be used for the new asset.
Section 139 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, cannot be meant only Section 139(1) but it means all sub-sections of Section 139 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Upload it and we will read it, work out your deadline and draft the reply. A CA reviews before anything is filed.
Handle my notice → Ask a CA on WhatsAppNot necessarily. The Gauhati High Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal and upheld the exemption for the whole gain of Rs 29,73,048. Section 54(2) requires the unutilised gain to be deposited before the date of furnishing the return of income under section 139, and section 139 there cannot mean only section 139(1); it means all the sub-sections, including sub-section (4). So an assessee who utilises the gain before the time allowed by section 139(4) has complied. The Court applied the settled rules that a beneficial provision is construed to advance its purpose and that no words are to be added to a plain provision. This was decided by the High Court (Gauhati High Court - D. Biswas and T. Nandakumar Singh, JJ; judgment by T. Nandakumar Singh, J) and bears on section 54, section 54(2), section 139(4), section 2(47)(v) of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as [2006] 286 ITR 274 (Gauhati); (2006) 206 CTR (Gau) 361. This is the decision practitioners cite for the extended window under section 54 and section 54F, and it is followed widely. The reasoning is textual and therefore portable: the sub-section names section 139 without qualification, while the words in the bracketed portion about the capital gains account scheme deposit refer specifically to the due date under sub-section (1), so the legislature plainly knew how to confine the reference when it wanted to; reading section 139 as section 139(1) would attribute redundancy to Parliament, which Santosh Shankar Acharya forbids. It also gives a second, independent ground for cases of this kind, since the Tribunal had held that where the whole gain has been appropriated to the new asset within the section 54(1) period, section 54(2) never comes into play at all. If it applies to you, the first step is this: If the deposit was missed, work out the date up to which a return could be filed under section 139(4) for that year and show that the gain was used by then.
The assessee, an individual in the business of plying trucks, sold his one-fourth share in a residential property known as Jalal House at Rehabari, Guwahati, to the Government of Meghalaya for Rs 40,00,000 by sale deed dated 21 December 1995. Against an indexed cost of Rs 10,26,925 the capital gain was Rs 29,73,048, which was not in dispute. He decided in February 1996 to buy Flat No. 4B on the fourth floor of a building at Ballygunge Park Road, Calcutta, from Radha Krishna Jalan and Anguri Devi Jalan, who held half each, and entered into agreements dated 9 May 1996 and 17 May 1996 for Rs 15 lakh with each, Rs 30 lakh in all, together with a car parking space, taking physical possession in May 1996. The Assessing Officer refused the exemption on the footing that what the assessee had taken was only a sub-lease and not a purchase, and that he had not deposited the unappropriated gain in the Capital Gains Deposit Scheme 1988 by the due date under section 139(1). The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the transaction was a transfer within section 2(47)(v) but allowed the exemption only to the extent of Rs 14,43,254 utilised up to 31 August 1996, directing tax on the balance of Rs 15,29,794. Both sides appealed, and the Tribunal by common order of 18 April 2001 allowed the assessee's appeal and dismissed the Revenue's. The matter was decided on 2006-08-09 by the High Court (Gauhati High Court - D. Biswas and T. Nandakumar Singh, JJ; judgment by T. Nandakumar Singh, J). On those facts the High Court held as follows. The question, whether the assessee was entitled to the benefit of section 54 on the entire amount received, was answered in the positive. The Tribunal's order was not interfered with and the appeal was dismissed, the parties bearing their own costs. On a plain reading of section 54(2) the reference is to section 139 without qualification, and section 139 cannot be taken to mean only section 139(1) but means all its sub-sections. Under section 139(4) a person who has not filed within the time allowed may furnish the return at any time before the expiry of one year from the end of the relevant assessment year or before completion of the assessment, whichever is earlier, and the assessee could satisfy the requirement of section 54 up to that date.
The Court began from the character of the provision. Section 54 is a beneficial provision, enacted with the constitutional goal of providing residence to citizens in view, and in construing a beneficial enactment the reading that advances its object is to be preferred to one that obstructs it, following Kunal Singh. It then read section 54(2) as it stands: the unutilised gain is to be deposited before the date of furnishing the return of income under section 139. Nothing confines that to sub-section (1). Applying Santosh Shankar Acharya, every part of a statute is enacted for a purpose, the legislature is deemed not to waste its words, and a construction attributing redundancy is not accepted without compelling reason; and applying Bhavnagar University, a statutory enactment is construed according to its plain meaning, with no words added, altered or modified unless plainly necessary to prevent absurdity or unworkability. Section 139(4) therefore supplies the operative date. The Tribunal, whose order was upheld, had reached the same result by a different route: the assessee had entered into the agreements and taken possession within a year of the sale, which is a transfer under clause (v) of section 2(47) read with section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, and having acquired the flat for Rs 30 lakh against a gain of Rs 29,73,048 he had appropriated the whole gain within the section 54(1) period, so there was no occasion to comply with section 54(2) at all. The Tribunal had also relied on the Kerala High Court in K.C. Gopalan for the proposition that the statute does not require the very sale proceeds to be used for the new asset. In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "Section 139 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, cannot be meant only Section 139(1) but it means all sub-sections of Section 139 of the Income-tax Act, 1961."
It was decided by the High Court on 2006-08-09 and is reported as [2006] 286 ITR 274 (Gauhati); (2006) 206 CTR (Gau) 361. Binding within that High Court's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere. A High Court decision binds the assessing officer, the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal within that state, and is persuasive elsewhere. If your assessment is in a different jurisdiction, check whether your own High Court has taken the same view before relying on it. On section 54, section 54(2), section 139(4), section 2(47)(v), the practical question is whether the facts of your own notice match the facts of this case closely enough for the same rule to apply.
It helps the taxpayer. The question, whether the assessee was entitled to the benefit of section 54 on the entire amount received, was answered in the positive. The Tribunal's order was not interfered with and the appeal was dismissed, the parties bearing their own costs. On a plain reading of section 54(2) the reference is to section 139 without qualification, and section 139 cannot be taken to mean only section 139(1) but means all its sub-sections. Under section 139(4) a person who has not filed within the time allowed may furnish the return at any time before the expiry of one year from the end of the relevant assessment year or before completion of the assessment, whichever is earlier, and the assessee could satisfy the requirement of section 54 up to that date. It arises in Capital Gains and Capital Gains Exemptions matters, on section 54, section 54(2), section 139(4), section 2(47)(v) of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by Gauhati High Court - D. Biswas and T. Nandakumar Singh, JJ; judgment by T. Nandakumar Singh, J. Before relying on it, read the source linked on this page and check whether it has since been distinguished, overruled or overtaken by an amendment to the Income Tax Act. In practice the steps that follow from it are these. Run the section 54(1) argument first where you can: if the entire gain went into the new house within the permitted period, there is nothing left for the deposit requirement to bite on. Prove the purchase by possession and the agreements as well as by the conveyance - the transfer here was established through possession taken under agreements and section 2(47)(v). Keep the balance sheet consistent, showing the full cost of the new asset as an investment and any unpaid amount as a liability, as this assessee did.
Validity check could not be completed. No later history was checked, and no check was made of whether other High Courts have taken a different view of the reference to section 139 in section 54(2) or of the corresponding words in section 54F(4). No source could be cited for that finding. Checking whether an authority still stands matters as much as knowing what it held: a decision may be overruled on one point and survive on another, or the provision it interprets may have been amended since. Read the source and the editor's note on this page before relying on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal.
The judgment is internally inconsistent about the year. Paragraph 1 records the assessment year as 1996-97, which fits a sale in December 1995, but paragraph 6 works the section 139(4) date from assessment year 1997-98 and arrives at 30 March 1998. The discrepancy is in the text and is not resolved here; a reader working out the extended date for his own case should do the arithmetic from the year of transfer. The judgment also recites the Assessing Officer's finding that the assessee held only a sub-lease under an indenture of January 1998 without resolving how that sits with the agreements of May 1996, the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal having proceeded on the agreements and possession. The version of section 54 quoted in the judgment refers to construction within three years in sub-section (2) and two years in the passage summarising K.C. Gopalan; the section as it stood allows three years for construction. This library shows the verification state of every entry openly. This entry has not yet been read in full by a chartered accountant. The summary reflects the sources listed on this page. Read the source before you rely on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
The question, whether the assessee was entitled to the benefit of section 54 on the entire amount received, was answered in the positive. The Tribunal's order was not interfered with and the appeal was dismissed, the parties bearing their own costs. On a plain reading of section 54(2) the reference is to section 139 without qualification, and section 139 cannot be taken to mean only section 139(1) but means all its sub-sections. Under section 139(4) a person who has not filed within the time allowed may furnish the return at any time before the expiry of one year from the end of the relevant assessment year or before completion of the assessment, whichever is earlier, and the assessee could satisfy the requirement of section 54 up to that date.
Every entry in this library links to where it was found, so you can check it yourself rather than take our word for it.
Our JDA was never registered and the project collapsed. Am I still taxed on capital gains?
A court order delayed my sale deed. Does my s.54 exemption run from the agreement to sell?
I filed my return late. When is the 276CC offence committed, and is it still a first offence?
I got two independent floors from the builder. Is that one residential house for 54?