Skip to main content

Section 54F Exemption cannot be denied on residential property acquired by other than sale deed

Cause Title : ACIT vs Sh. Sanjay Choudhary, ITA No.1274/Del/2020, A.Y. 2013-14, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal

Date of Judgment/Order : 23/01/2023

Corum : Sh. N.K.Billaiya, Accountant Member And Sh. Anubha V Sharma, Judicial Member

Citied: ACIT V. Om Prakash Gyal [2012] (JP)

Background

The Assessee had claimed benefit under Section 54F of the Income Tax Act for having constructed residential house out of the capital gains from sale of some properties. However the tax dept. rejected the claim arguing that the Assessee has not held the properties for at least 36 months and further the purchases made by the Assessee were not through registered sale deed.

The Appellate Authority however took a contrary view and gave benefit of Section 54F of the Act to the assessee which lead to the present appeal filed by the Dept.

The question before the Appellate Tribunal was whether exemption under Section 54F of the IT Act would be available for the properties purchased by the Respondent who does not have any registered deed in his name.

The revenue dept. contended that Ld. CIT(A) has fallen in error in considering the nature of transactions for acquiring three properties by the assessee vide agreements and power attorney to be duly purchased. He submitted that the property did not fall in the class of residential properties and Ld. AO has rightly disallowed the exemption.

Judgment

The Appellate Tribunal observed that the original seller have confirmed having owned and sold the said property as claimed by the assessee. He also provided copy of original GPA dated 10.06.2009 executed by him in favour of his wife thereby granting power of attorney for management and to sell the above mentioned property.  His wife had received the sale consideration from Smt. Bhawana Gupta. Ld. AO had considered this transaction to be a sale of capital asset by the assessee and calculated long term capital gain.

The Appellate Authority had held that  the transactions for sale as well as purchases of land for construction of new residential house/residential house are through registered Power Of Attorney (POA) cum consideration receipts except the property at Mehrauli which is true unregistered POA along with receipts. Therefore, if the sale consideration has been accepted for the purpose of computing LTCG on the registered POA, then the purchase of land/house on the basis of regd. POA cannot be considered a default for the purpose of exemption u/s 54F.

The Bench is of considered opinion that execution of the sale deed or any document of Conveyance in favour of vendee, only transfers the ‘ legal title’ for the purpose of civil consequences. The ownership of a property is a bundle of interests and apart from the registered sale deed or any other document of conveyance, vendee can acquire interest in semblance of right of owner by documents like GPA or agreement to sell. The ‘purchase’ of immovable property involves acquiring all those interests in the property. Same may be by some inchoate instruments in favour of the purchaser. Non execution of a registered document of transfer of title may have civil consequences in regard to his title, qua rights between the seller and purchaser but for the purpose of benefits of Section 54/54F, the assessee shall be deemed to have ‘purchased’ the properties. As for the purpose of Section 54/54F of the Act, the important question is that money out of Long term capital gain (LTCG) should be paid/spent by the assessee, before the end of statutory period, for claiming exemption. When the Ld. AO had not doubted the payments out of LTCG made by assessee for purchase of three properties with inchoate documents executed in favour of the assessee. Then for not having the sale deed executed in his favour, assessee cannot be said to have not ‘Purchased’ the properties as a statutory compliance. Thus, the findings of Ld. CIT(A) in this regard require no interference.

On the issue of whether the construction done by the Assessee was residential or not, the bench was of considered opinion that the nature and extent of construction or nomenclature like house, plot, cottage, farm house or villa are only indicative of the fact that property purchased is not a commercial property and is not an agricultural property. They all convey residential house property. How it is inhabited should not interest the revenue. As per judgment in Om Prakash Gyal (supra), only requirement for claiming exemption under Section 54F is construction of residential house and it does not matter that house constructed is on agricultural land.

Comments

Most viewed this month

Michigan House Approves 'Right-to-Work' Bill

Amid raucous protests, the Republican-led Michigan House approved a contentious right-to-work bill on  Dec 11 limiting unions' strength in the state where the (Union for American Auto Workers)  UAW was born. The chamber passed a measure dealing with public-sector workers 58-51 as protesters shouted "shame on you" from the gallery and huge crowds of union backers massed in the state Capitol halls and on the grounds. Backers said a right-to-work law would bring more jobs to Michigan and give workers freedom. Critics said it would drive down wages and benefits. The right-to-work movement has been growing in the country since Wisconsin fought a similar battle with unions over two years ago. Michigan would become the 24th state to enact right-to-work provisions, and passage of the legislation would deal a stunning blow to the power of organized labor in the United States. Wisconsin Republicans in 2011 passed laws severely restricting the power of public s...

Power to re-assess by AO and disclosure of material facts

In AVTEC Limited v. DCIT, the division of the Delhi High Court held that AO is bound to look at the litigation history of the assessee and cannot expect the assessee to inform him.  In the instant case, the Petitioner, engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of automobiles, power trains and power shift transmissions along with their components, approached the High Court challenging the re-assessment order passed against them. For the year 2006-07, the Petitioner entered into a Business Transfer Agreement with Hindustan Motors Ltd, as per which, the Petitioner took over the business from HML.  While filing income tax return for the said year, the petitioner claimed the expenses incurred in respect of professional and legal charges for the purpose of taking over of the business from HML as capital expenses and claimed depreciation. Article referred: http://www.taxscan.in/assessing-officer-bound-look-litigation-history-assessee-delhi-hc-read-order/8087/

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...