2016 (2) TMI 343 - AT - Income Tax

Amount received on transfer of Bungalow - assessed as capital gains or income from others sources - CIT(A) held it liable to be assessed under the head capital gains - Held that - The undisputed fact is that the income was received by the assessee for transfer of bungalow under exchange deed dated 29.8.2005. The assessee was having right and interest in the bungalow, which was transferred. Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that the assessee had received the income without consideration. There is ample evidence on the file that ultimately the property i.e. bungalow in question devolved upon the assessee which was transferred by the assessee and the income earned by the assessee there from is to be assessed as capital gains. Even for the sake of arguments if we presume that the assessee had sold the property in which he had no title or interest but after having sold the property he got right or title in the property then also he is estopped under the law from saying that the sale agreement earlier entered by him cannot be acted upon or that the sale deed was invalid. Under such circumstances, the presumption under the law is that the assessee had sold his interest in the entire property even if he has acquired such ownership rights after the sale. We do not find any infirmity in the order of ld. CIT(A) on this issue and the same is upheld. - Decided against revenue Deduction u/s 54F - interconnection of flats - whether assessee is not the rightful owner of the property he has sold and the sale proceeds have been invested in three residential units? - Held that - CIT(A) after considering the facts and evidences on the filed observed that all the three flats were interconnected and had only one entry, one kitchen they were used by the assessee as one unit. The electricity bill was also only one, though there were three agreements for purchase of three flats, however, the same were used as one unit. The ld. CIT(A) after perusing the floor plan and other record held that in fact, the assessee had purchased only one flat which was conveyed to the assessee vide three separate agreements for the purpose of convenience of the builder or for any other purposes as the case may be . He held that it was a single dwelling unit and the assessee thus was entitled to claim all the benefits arising out of section 54F of the Act. In view of the detailed discussion made by the ld. CIT(A) after proper appreciation of the evidence on the file, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the ld. CIT(A) - Decided against revenue

Summary

Issues:
1. Assessment of amount received on transfer of property as capital gains or income from other sources.
2. Eligibility of deduction u/s 54F for investment in multiple residential units.

Issue 1:
The Revenue challenged the assessment of a sum received by the assessee on the transfer of a bungalow as capital gains instead of income from other sources. The AO contended that the assessee was not the sole owner of the property, therefore, the excess consideration received was not capital gain. The CIT(A) analyzed the evidence, including the wills of the father and mother of the assessee, and noted that the property devolved upon the assessee after the relinquishment of rights by his sisters and mother. The CIT(A) held that the income was rightfully assessed as capital gains, as the assessee had a valid interest in the property at the time of transfer. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the assessee had the right and interest in the bungalow, making the income received for its transfer eligible for capital gains assessment.

Issue 2:
Regarding the claim of deduction u/s 54F, the AO argued that the assessee purchased three residential units, making him eligible for exemption for only one unit under section 54F. However, the CIT(A) examined the facts and found that the three flats were used as a single unit by the assessee. Despite three separate agreements, the flats were interconnected and used as one dwelling unit. The CIT(A) determined that the assessee had effectively purchased one single unit, entitling him to claim benefits under section 54F. The ITAT agreed with the CIT(A)'s analysis, dismissing the revenue's appeal and upholding the decision that the assessee was eligible for the deduction under section 54F for the investment in the interconnected residential units.

In conclusion, the ITAT dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the assessments made by the CIT(A) regarding the classification of income received on property transfer and the eligibility of deduction under section 54F for the investment in interconnected residential units.