2015 (11) TMI 1547 - HC - Income Tax

Entitlement to benefit of Section 54F - Held that - This Court in the case of Fathima Bai 2008 (10) TMI 563 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT has in similar facts allowed the benefit to the assessee therein after observing that even though the assessee may have technically defaulted but since the sale amount was duly utilized within the specified period of three years the assessee would be entitled to the benefit of Section 54F of the Act. - Decided in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Section 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 regarding the benefit eligibility for the assessee who sold a property.
2. Dispute over compliance with sub-section 4 of Section 54F in terms of depositing sale proceeds in the Capital Gains Account Scheme.

Analysis:
1. The judgment dealt with the interpretation of Section 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961, concerning the benefit eligibility for the assessee who sold a property. The dispute revolved around whether the assessee, who had sold a property and utilized the entire sale amount for the purchase of land and construction of a residential house within three years, was entitled to the benefits under Section 54F of the Act. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of the Revenue, but the Tribunal allowed the claim in full, citing a previous Division Bench decision in a similar case.

2. The second issue in the judgment focused on the compliance with sub-section 4 of Section 54F regarding the deposit of sale proceeds in the Capital Gains Account Scheme. The Revenue contended that since the assessee did not deposit the sale amount in the specified account, the benefit under Section 54F should not be granted. However, the Tribunal, following the precedent set in a previous case, ruled in favor of the assessee, emphasizing that the utilization of the entire sale amount within the stipulated time period was crucial for eligibility.

3. The Court, in its analysis, compared the facts of the present case with the precedent mentioned and found them to be similar. It noted that the Division Bench decision in the previous case had allowed the benefit to the assessee despite technical non-compliance, as the sale amount was utilized within the prescribed time frame. Therefore, the Court concluded that no substantial question of law arose for determination in the current case and dismissed the appeal accordingly. The judgment highlighted the importance of fulfilling the substantive requirement of utilizing the sale amount for the specified purpose within the designated period under Section 54F of the Act.