9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (11) TMI 950 - AT - Income TaxExemption u/s 54F - Allegation of deferment of tax on LTCG - Capital gain arouse in AY 2006-07 - deposited in capital gain account scheme as on 30-10-2006 - offered to tax in AY 2009-10 - argument of Revenue is that assessee had no intention to construct a house in the one acre property. Land was agricultural in nature and assessee would have been aware that a residential construction was not possible in an agricultural property. - held that - if the assessee had no intention to construct a house, he would not have got a plan prepared by an architect and submitted it to the local authority for approval along with a site plan. May be it true that due to Coastal Zone Regulations, no construction was possible in the said land. But we cannot say that assessee, when purchasing the land, was aware that on account of the Coastal Zone Regulation, he could not construct a residential house therein. Even Coastal Zone Regulations by itself does not deny the right of construction, but places a number of constraints for such construction. Having not obtained approval for the plan within three years, assessee had offered the same to Capital Gain Account Scheme in Assessment Year 2009-10. Assessee here, having offered capital gains for tax in Assessment Year 2009-10 as stipulated in proviso-1 of section 54F of the Act, could not be saddled with the same liability for the impugned Assessment Year as well. Ld. CIT(A) was justified in directing the Assessing Officer to grant the assessee deduction under section 54F of the Act for impugned Assessment Year. - Decided in favor of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Exemption under Section 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Nature of the land purchased and its eligibility for construction. 3. Compliance with conditions specified in Section 54F. 4. Validity of deposits in the Capital Gains Account Scheme. 5. Timing and intention behind the construction of the residential house. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Exemption under Section 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961: The Revenue's grievance was that the CIT(A) allowed the exemption to the assessee under Section 54F, which was initially denied by the Assessing Officer (AO). The AO argued that the investments made in the Capital Gains Accounts Scheme were withdrawn and not used for constructing any residential building. The Revenue contended that the assessee failed to comply with the conditions specified in Section 54F, making the deferral of long-term capital gains tax to Assessment Year (AY) 2009-10 invalid. 2. Nature of the Land Purchased and its Eligibility for Construction: The AO noted that the land purchased by the assessee was agricultural, and no evidence was provided for converting it to a residential area. The AO concluded that the Rs. 2.41 crores invested in purchasing the agricultural land did not satisfy the conditions of Section 54F. The CIT(A) found that the land acquired was one acre, not 8.01 acres, and the assessee had prepared a construction plan and applied for necessary approvals. The CIT(A) also noted that the assessee could not proceed with construction due to Coastal Zone Regulations and had offered the amount as capital gains after three years. 3. Compliance with Conditions Specified in Section 54F: The AO argued that the assessee did not invest the consideration received from the transfer of the long-term capital asset within the specified period for constructing a residential house. The CIT(A), however, opined that the benefit of Section 54F would be available since the cost of the plot acquired was eligible for exemption along with the cost of construction. The CIT(A) noted that the amounts not used for construction were deposited in the Capital Gain Account Scheme and would be taxed if not used within the specified period. 4. Validity of Deposits in the Capital Gains Account Scheme: The AO pointed out that the deposits in the Capital Gains Account Scheme were made after the due date for filing the return. The CIT(A) clarified that the due date for filing the return for the assessee, subject to tax audit, was 31.10.06, not 31.07.06. The CIT(A) concluded that the withdrawal of money from the Capital Gain Account Scheme did not disqualify the assessee from claiming exemption under Section 54F for the impugned AY. 5. Timing and Intention behind the Construction of the Residential House: The Revenue argued that the assessee had no intention of constructing a residential house on the agricultural land. The CIT(A) and the Tribunal found that the assessee had moved the local authority for approval, submitted building plans, and obtained a power connection, indicating an intention to construct. The Tribunal noted that the assessee could not have known about the Coastal Zone Regulations at the time of purchase and had offered the capital gains for tax in AY 2009-10. Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, allowing the exemption under Section 54F for the impugned AY. The Tribunal found no evidence to suggest that the assessee had no intention of constructing a residential house and concluded that the assessee had complied with the conditions of Section 54F by offering the capital gains for tax in AY 2009-10. The appeal of the Revenue and the Cross Objection of the assessee were dismissed.
|
