Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2016 (1) TMI 656

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of improvement disallowed - Held that:- This has to be examined by the Assessing Officer with reference to the bills produced by the assessee and decide the issue in accordance with law. Thus, we restore the issues back to the file of the Assessing Officer to decide the same afresh in accordance with law. - I.T.A.No.94/Mds/2014 - - - Dated:- 28-10-2015 - SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER For The Appellant : Dr.L.Natarajan, C.A. For The Respondent : Mr. A.V.Sreekanth, JCIT ORDER Per Challa Nagendra Prasad, JM: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-VII, Chennai dated 03.12.2013 for the assessment year 2010-11. 2. Though several grounds were raised by the assessee in her appeal, the crux of the issue is that Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in allowing the claim under section 54F partially and disregarding the expenditure incurred on the improvement for the purpose of computing capital gains. 3. The assessee, an individual, deriving income from business filed her return of income for the assessment year 2010-11 on 04.03.2011 ad .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ated in January and February, 2004 which is after the date of bill issued by the contractor. Therefore Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was of the view that the cost of improvement was an afterthought and bills were prepared subsequently, thus the claim for cost of improvement is rejected. 6. Counsel for the assessee submits that during the assessment year 2010-11, assessee had sold a piece of land at Church Road, Mogappair village, Ambattur Taluk, Thiruvallur Dist. for ₹ 1,13,82,850/-. He submits that the said land was purchased in August, 2003 for ₹ 12,99,452/- and its indexed cost comes to ₹ 17,73,766/-. Counsel submits that assessee has carried on extensive improvement on the land by way of filling up of low lying areas and has erected a solid iron gate of 7 in height besides constructing a compound wall running to 293 running feet. He further submits that the assessee also dug a well of 50 feet depth and constructed a shed. All these improvement cost ₹ 9,55,350/- during the year 2003-04 for which contractors certificate with bills were produced before the Income Tax Officer when the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) remanded the case. Counsel .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Total 93,42,693 7. Counsel for the assessee submits that the residential property / flat allotted to the assessee is in 12th floor near Koyambedu where metro rail station is coming up therefore, there are several bottlenecks in completing the construction. Counsel submits that lower authorities have opined that since the unutilized net consideration received on sale of land was not deposited in specified bank account, the assessee is not entitled to claim entire deduction under section 54F of the Act and only the amount paid upto the date of filing of return alone is eligible for deduction. Counsel submits that nondeposit of net consideration in specified bank is only a venial breach or technical fault and deduction under section 54F need not be denied on this score. He submits that section 54F being beneficial provision must receive liberal construction and purposive interpretation is to be derived on it, so that benefits intended can be conferred. Therefore, counsel submits that assessee has entered into a valid agreement with M/s. Ozone Projects Pvt. Ltd. on 13.04.2010 within one month after the date of sale of land on 22.03.2010, since the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the Act. The issue of whether non-investment of sale proceeds into capital gain account is fatal to the claim for exemption under section 54F of the Act has been considered by several Benches of the Tribunal including the co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Shri Maduvan Prasad Vs. ITO (supra). In this case, the co-ordinate Bench considered a similar situation and held that non-depositing of sale proceeds into capital gains account is only a technical fault. While holding so, the Tribunal held as under:- 5. In relation to the merits, the learned AR relied on the decisions reported in 48lTD 191 (Mad) and 85 ITJ (Jodh) 173 and stated that 3 mere procedural infirmity by way of non investment in the capital gains account scheme should not come in the way-of the claim for exemption particularly when the ultimate objective of providing for the exemption is satisfied. 6. The learned DR on the other hand vehemently argued. that the reopening was justified since there was a lack of disclosure on the part of the appellant of the capital gains and further since there was no original assessment but only a processing under section 143( l ) and therefore the question of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... lowable since the intention of the assessee from the very beginning was to purchase a residential house and he has done so within two years from the sale of the plot. The Tribunal observed that the intention of the Act as well as the intention of the assessee have to be considered in a right perspective. In the case reported in 48 ITD 191, the assessee realized profits from transfer of a land, which was deposited in the housing division of its construction business for the purpose of building another residential building. The Tribunal held that this amounted to utilization of funds for the purpose of his own residential house and that since the amount was in fact utilized for construction of a residential house, the exemption was allowable. In this case the Tribunal observed that the purpose of section 54F requiring the deposit of unutilized fund is not for depriving the assessee the use of funds but only for avoiding the rectification of the assessment by bringing to tax the amount, which had been earlier claimed as exempt by reason of reinvestment. We find that the Board has in its circular no.495 dated 22nd September, 1987 at paragraphs 26.1. and 26.2 stated that this is the pur .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e treated as sufficient compliance of section 54 and therefore held that appellant is entitled to the exemption u/s.54 even in respect of the amount invested by way of construction of the residential house amounting to ₹ 16,40,311/-. Before we depart we may mention that the Supreme Court in Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co.Ltd. vs. State of U.P. (1979) 118 ITR 326 has observed as follows:- that there is no presumption that every person knows the law. It is often said that everyone is presumed to know the law, but that is not a correct statement, there is no such maxim known to the law. 10. The Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Kishore H. Galaya Vs. ITO (supra) held as under:- The assessee had booked a new residential flat with the builder jointly with his wife and he had paid booking amount of ₹ 1,00,000 to the builder before the due date of filing of the return of income u/s. 139(1) for the A.Y.2006-07 and the balance amount had been paid in instalments after the said date. The builder was to handover the possession of the flat after construction. It has, therefore, to be considered as a case of construction of new residential house and not p .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... within a year or construction within three years of a residential house to avoid payment of capital gain tax. This provision was introduced with the sole intention to purchase or construct a house. Proviso 4 to this section was introduced by the Finance Act, 1987, which reads as under: Under the existing provisions of Sections 54, 54B, 54D and 54F, long-term capital gains arising from the transfer of any immovable property used for residence, land used for agriculture ..and other capital assets are exempt from income-tax, if such gains are reinvested in new assets within the time allowed for the purpose. The original assessment needs rectification whenever the taxpayer fails to acquire the corresponding new assets. [The above is not the fourth proviso but portion of Circular No. 495, dt. 22nd Sept., 1987-- Ed.] 9. The assessee had sold plot on 4th Jan., 1995 (asst. yr. 1995- 96) and invested the sale consideration by 30th March, 1996 (asst. yr.1996-97), i.e. one year from the sale of the plot, as provided under Section 54F(1). The assessee had made an attempt to purchase a house at Vivek Vihar, Jaipur immediately on 16th April, 1995 after sale of plot on 4th Jan., 1995. T .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n of the flat at Lodha Tower, Jodhpur by 30th March, 1996 when the plot at Jaipur-was sold on 4th Jan., 19~5 for ₹ 51akhs, in view of the aforesaid decisions, this amount of ₹ 4,01,000 invested by the assessee in the purchase of flat is to be held exempt under Section 54F. The intention of the assessee from the very beginning was to purchase a flat. When due to certain unavoidable circumstances, the contract did not materialise, it cannot be said that there was any hanky panky on the part of the assessee to avoid payment of tax. The assessee ultimately purchased a flat within two years from the sale of plot. The default committed by the assessee was a technical default that the assessee did not deposit the amount meant for reinvestment in the capital gain account scheme before filing return under Section 139 of the Act. Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and the decisions relied by the learned Authorised Representative, we are of the considered opinion that the amount of ₹ 4,01,000 out of ₹ 5 lakhs which were ultimately invested within the stipulated time is to be exempt from tax although the assessee failed to technicall .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates