2025 (7) TMI 970 - AT - Income Tax

Conversion of asset from inventory/stock-in-trade to investment account - capital gains derived from sale/transfer - as per AO such a conversion before insertion of the above provision does not entitle the assessee to get assessed for corresponding capital gains as the AO has rightly recharacterized the same as it s business income in very terms HELD THAT - There is hardly any dispute between the parties that the assessee had purchased the relevant asset/property at Jhandewalan Extension New Delhi way-back in financial year 2010-11 relevant to assessment year 2011-12 which was taken as its inventory/stock-in-trade. And that the assessee later on converted/transferred the same from its inventory to investment in financial year 2016-17 relevant to assessment year 2017-18 followed by its sale/transfer in the relevant previous year giving rise to treatment of the profits derived therefrom as capital gains. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the department s foregoing vehement contention and the assessee s reliance placed on the CIT(A) foregoing detailed discussion. We note that so far as the Revenue s case that the assessee is not entitled to convert its inventory/stock in trade to its investment account it is hardly found to be res integra in light of hon ble jurisdictional high court s decision in CIT Vs. Express Securities Pvt. Ltd. 2013 (10) TMI 1182 - DELHI HIGH COURT We accordingly concluded that once DR had not questioned and rejected the assessee s conversion of above asset from inventory/stock-in-trade to investment account in financial year 2016-17 its consequential capital gains derived from sale/transfer thereof in subsequent assessment year 2020-21 could not be rejected as per their lordships above extracted detailed discussion. The Revenue fails in its instant sole substantive ground therefore. Disallow the assessee s expenditure incurred right from financial year 2011-12 onwards against its sale consideration invoking prior period principle which is no more applicable once its land in question stands treated as a capital asset. Rejected accordingly.

Summary

The core legal questions considered in this appeal pertain primarily to the characterization and tax treatment of an immovable property originally accounted as stock-in-trade but later converted into a capital asset, and the consequent tax implications on its sale. The key issues are:

1. Whether the immovable property situated at 1E/20, Jhandewalan Extension, Delhi, initially accounted as stock-in-trade in FY 2010-11, was correctly treated as a capital asset on the date of sale in FY 2019-20.

2. Whether the acceptance of the board resolution dated 04/04/2016 suffices to allow the conversion of stock-in-trade into a capital asset, despite the main business being property development.

3. Whether expenses incurred in FY 2011-12, 2017-18, and 2018-19 can be allowed against consideration received from the property, notwithstanding claims that such expenses relate to prior periods.

4. Whether the conversion of land into a capital asset was a tax avoidance device without any genuine change in the nature of the business.

5. Ancillary issues concerning the allowance of transfer expenses, disallowance of additional stamp duty, brokerage expenses, and capitalization of interest paid on borrowed funds for acquisition of the property.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Treatment of Property as Capital Asset vs. Stock-in-Trade

Legal Framework and Precedents: The Income-tax Act, 1961, defines "capital asset" under Section 2(14) and prescribes tax treatment for capital gains under Section 45. Section 45(2) specifically addresses conversion of capital assets into stock-in-trade, but does not explicitly provide for the reverse-conversion of stock-in-trade into capital asset. The Finance Act, 2018 introduced Section 28(via) with effect from 01.04.2019, providing for income recognition on conversion of stock-in-trade into capital assets.

Judicial precedents such as Asstt. CIT v. Bright Star Investments (P.) Ltd. and Arun Sunny vs Dy CIT elucidate that in the absence of specific statutory provisions governing conversion from stock-in-trade to capital asset, the transaction should be examined on its facts and a rational approach adopted. The cost of acquisition for capital gains computation is to be determined as per Section 48 read with Section 55(2), and it is not necessary that the asset was a capital asset on the date of acquisition, only on the date of transfer.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court noted that the property was initially recorded as inventory in FY 2010-11 but was reclassified as an investment (capital asset) in FY 2016-17 by a board resolution dated 04.04.2016, supported by audited financial statements. The Assessing Officer (AO) rejected this conversion on the ground that Section 28(via) was effective only from 01.04.2019, thus disallowing the claim of capital gains treatment for the sale in FY 2019-20.

The Court held that the absence of a statutory provision for conversion of stock-in-trade into capital asset prior to 2019 does not preclude such conversion. The property ceased to be stock-in-trade as of 01.04.2017 and became a capital asset, and the sale in FY 2019-20 was therefore subject to capital gains tax. The Court relied on the principle that the chargeability under Section 45 depends on the nature of the asset on the date of transfer, not acquisition.

The Court further relied on the jurisdictional High Court decision in CIT vs. Express Securities Pvt. Ltd., which upheld the permissibility of conversion of stock-in-trade into investments, even if done before the insertion of specific provisions, provided there is no evidence of continuing to treat the asset as stock-in-trade.

Key Evidence and Findings: The board resolution, audited financial statements, and consistent treatment in subsequent years supported the conversion. The AO's failure to consider these documents and the lack of evidence that the assessee continued to treat the property as stock-in-trade were noted.

Application of Law to Facts: The Court applied the statutory definitions and judicial precedents to conclude that the property was rightly treated as capital asset on the date of sale, and the profits were capital gains.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue's argument that conversion was impermissible prior to Section 28(via) was rejected as contrary to established legal principles and facts. The Court emphasized that the Revenue failed to demonstrate that the assessee continued to treat the property as stock-in-trade after conversion.

Conclusion: The Court upheld the CIT(A)'s decision treating the property as a capital asset and the gains as capital gains.

2. Allowance of Transfer and Other Expenses

Legal Framework and Precedents: Expenses incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of transfer of capital assets are allowable deductions under the Income-tax Act. Additionally, under the Income Computation and Disclosure Standards (ICDS) IX, borrowing costs directly attributable to acquisition or construction of qualifying assets must be capitalized.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The AO disallowed transfer expenses of Rs. 23,40,000/- related to brokerage and other costs due to lack of proof. The Court found that invoices, bank statements, TDS certificates, and sale/purchase deeds were furnished but ignored by AO without reasons. The Court directed AO to allow these expenses.

Regarding additional stamp duty paid in FY 2011-12 after purchase in FY 2010-11, the Court held that such differential duty paid due to circle value revision is part of acquisition cost and should be allowed.

On the disallowance of interest expenses capitalized as part of the property cost in FY 2017-18 and 2018-19, the Court referred to ICDS-IX and judicial precedents (Addl. CIT v K.S. Gupta, Parwati Devi Totlani v ITO, CIT vs Mithilesh Kumari, and others) confirming that interest on borrowed funds for acquisition of capital assets forms part of cost of acquisition and is eligible for indexation and deduction under Section 48.

Key Evidence and Findings: Documentary evidence including bills, bank statements, TDS certificates, registered sale deeds, audited financials, and CA certificates were submitted by the assessee and not properly considered by AO.

Application of Law to Facts: The Court applied the principles that allow capitalization of borrowing costs and deduction of transfer expenses to the facts, directing AO to allow these claims.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The AO's rejection based on technical grounds or non-examination of evidence was overruled. The Court emphasized the need to consider all documentary evidence and legal provisions.

Conclusion: The Court allowed transfer expenses, additional stamp duty, and capitalized interest expenses as part of cost of acquisition for capital gains computation.

3. Disallowance of Expenses on Prior Period Grounds

Legal Framework: The principle of prior period expenses disallowance applies to revenue expenses. However, once the property is treated as a capital asset, expenses incurred for acquisition or improvement are capital in nature and allowable as part of cost for capital gains computation.

Court's Reasoning: The Court rejected the AO's disallowance of expenses incurred in FY 2011-12, 2017-18, and 2018-19 on the ground that these relate to prior periods, holding that such disallowance is not applicable to capital expenses related to capital assets.

Conclusion: Expenses related to acquisition and improvement of capital asset are allowable notwithstanding their incurrence in prior years.

4. Allegation of Tax Avoidance by Conversion

Legal Framework and Precedents: Conversion of stock-in-trade into capital assets is permissible if bona fide and supported by evidence. Mere allegation of tax avoidance without evidence is insufficient to disregard such conversion.

Court's Reasoning: The Court observed that the Revenue failed to demonstrate that the conversion was a sham or lacked genuine change in business treatment. The consistent accounting treatment and documentary evidence supported the bona fide nature of conversion.

Conclusion: The allegation of tax avoidance was rejected due to lack of evidence.

5. Other Ancillary Grounds

Brokerage Expenses: The AO allowed brokerage expenses claimed by the assessee fully, and the Court dismissed the appeal ground challenging this allowance as factually incorrect.

Set-off of Short-Term Capital Loss: The Court directed that short-term capital loss arising from other property sale be allowed to be set off against long-term capital gains as per law.

Significant Holdings and Core Principles Established:

"In the absence of a specific provision to deal with this type of situations; such transaction cannot be treated as business transaction when on the date of sale of such asset; it was capital asset."

"The only condition which must be satisfied in order to attract the charge to tax under Section 45 is that the property transferred must be a capital asset on the date of transfer and that it is not necessary that it should have been capital asset also on the date of its acquisition by the assessee."

"Borrowing costs that are directly attributable to the acquisition, construction or production of a qualifying asset shall be capitalised as part of the cost of that asset."

"Interest paid on the borrowing made for acquiring Capital Asset is part of the cost of acquisition; and therefore, eligible for indexation and deduction from Sale Consideration for computation of capital gains."

"Conversion of stock-in-trade into investment is permissible and such conversion cannot be rejected solely on the ground that corresponding statutory provision was introduced later, especially when there is no evidence that the assessee continued to treat the asset as stock-in-trade."

Final Determinations:

- The property originally accounted as stock-in-trade was validly converted into a capital asset in FY 2016-17.

- The sale of the property in FY 2019-20 is chargeable to tax under the head capital gains.

- Transfer expenses, brokerage, additional stamp duty, and capitalized interest expenses are allowable deductions in computing capital gains.

- Prior period disallowance principle does not apply to capital expenses related to acquisition or improvement of capital assets.

- Allegations of tax avoidance by conversion were rejected due to lack of evidence.

- Short-term capital loss is allowed to be set off against long-term capital gains as per law.

- The Revenue's appeal is dismissed on all substantive grounds.