Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (9) TMI 1138 - AT - Income TaxDenial of exemption u/s.54F - procurement of new residential flats - assessee had paid sum to Builders and that money is still lying with the said developer as sworn in by the affidavit filed in record by the assessee and that once the project is completed, the assessee will go ahead and procure the new residential house by paying the balance amount - HELD THAT - In the present case, we have already examined the bona-fide nature of the assessee and genuineness of the transactions for procurement of new residential flats and that genuineness remain uncontroverted. We further find even in the following decisions wherein it has been held that if the amount has been utilized before the due date of filing of return, the exemption u/s.54F of the Act cannot be denied on the ground that the assessee has not taken the possession of the flat within the stipulated period Deemed dividend u/s.2(22)(e) - HELD THAT - In the balance sheet of the company i.e. Kumar Urban Development Ltd, the amount is not shown as loan to the assessee. The words in Section 2(22)(e) of the Act clearly states any advance or loan given to a person . In this case, there is no loan or advance given from the company to the assessee. When no loan or advance has been given to the assessee, then Section 2(22)(e) of the Act is not triggered. We, therefore, set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition on account of deemed dividend u/s.2(22)(e) of the Act. The Assessing Officer is directed to provide appeal effect accordingly. Thus, ground No.3 raised in appeal by the assessee is allowed. Addition on the basis of ITS data - HELD THAT - In view of the submissions made by the parties herein, we set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) on this issue and restore the matter to the file of Assessing Officer for necessary verification and adjudication wherein the assessee is directed to file the reconciled details. AO is directed to adjudicate the issue after considering the reconciled details in compliance with the principles of natural justice. Thus, ground No.4 raised in appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Issues Involved:
1. Denial of exemption under Section 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Addition on account of deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Addition based on ITS data. Detailed Analysis: A. Denial of exemption under Section 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961: 1. Facts and Contentions: The assessee claimed exemption under Section 54F for long-term capital gains from the sale of assets, which was denied by the Assessing Officer (AO) and confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. The reasons for denial included unregistered agreements, no possession of the flat, and the assessee being an interested party in the entities involved. 2. Assessee's Arguments: The assessee argued that substantial payment was made before the due date of filing the return, and the delay in possession was due to genuine reasons beyond control. The assessee cited judicial precedents to support that physical possession and registration are not mandatory for claiming exemption if the money is invested bona fide. 3. Tribunal's Findings: The Tribunal found the transactions genuine, noting that the assessee had paid ?22.10 Crores to the developer before the due date of filing the return. The Tribunal referred to various judicial decisions, emphasizing that the critical factor is the investment of capital gains in a new residential house, not the registration or possession. The Tribunal allowed the exemption under Section 54F, setting aside the CIT(A)'s order. B. Addition on account of deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961: 1. Facts and Contentions: The AO made an addition of ?3,54,94,895/- as deemed dividend, stating that the assessee received a loan from Kumar Urban Development Ltd., in which the assessee had a substantial interest. 2. Assessee's Arguments: The assessee contended that the amount was not a loan but a repayment of an advance given to a partnership firm, which was recorded correctly in the firm's and company's books. The AO's addition was based on an oversight in the assessee's books. 3. Tribunal's Findings: The Tribunal observed that the amount was not shown as a loan in the company's balance sheet and that no loan or advance was given to the assessee. The Tribunal concluded that Section 2(22)(e) was not applicable and directed the AO to delete the addition, setting aside the CIT(A)'s order. C. Addition based on ITS data: 1. Facts and Contentions: The AO made an addition of ?25,68,322/- based on ITS data, which the CIT(A) confirmed due to the assessee's failure to reconcile the details. 2. Assessee's Arguments: The assessee requested an opportunity to file reconciled details before the AO for proper verification and adjudication. 3. Tribunal's Findings: The Tribunal remitted the matter to the AO for necessary verification and adjudication, directing the assessee to provide reconciled details and ensuring compliance with the principles of natural justice. Additional Appeals (ITA No.1346 & 1347/PUN/2017): 1. Ground No.1: The Tribunal applied the same ruling as in ITA No.1345/PUN/2017, allowing the ground related to Section 54F exemption. 2. Ground No.2: Dismissed as general in nature and not requiring adjudication. Conclusion: - The appeal in ITA No.1345/PUN/2017 was partly allowed for statistical purposes. - The appeals in ITA No.1346 & 1347/PUN/2017 were allowed. Order Pronounced: 24th September 2019.
|