9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (12) TMI 1364 - AT - Income TaxExemption u/s 54F - purchase of two residential properties at two different locations on two different dates - HELD THAT - As per the provisions of the section 54F of the Act, the assessee has violated clause (ii) provided in sub-section (a) of section 54F of the Act, where it is stated that if the assessee purchases any new residential house other than new asset within a period of one year after the date of transfer of original asset, then the assessee is not entitled to claim exemption u/s.54F - In this case on perusal of the facts available on record, lower authorities have recorded categorical findings that assessee has purchased two different residential properties on two different dates and claimed exemption u/s.54F of the Act in contravention of provisions of law. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the assessee is not entitled for exemption u/s.54F of the Act. We are of the considered view that assessee is not entitled for exemption u/s.54F of the Act for purchase of two residential houses at two different locations on two different dates. The position remains same even after amendment to section 54F by the Finance Act, 2014 w.e.f. 01.04.2015. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the learned CIT(A) has right in denial of exemption claimed u/s.54F of the Act and hence, we are inclined to uphold the findings of the learned CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal filed by the assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Sustaining the partial reworking of the claim for tax exemption under Section 54F of the Income Tax Act. 2. Misconstruction of Section 54F regarding the reinvestment in two units. 3. Misreading of the decision of the Madras High Court on multiple units' eligibility for tax exemption under Section 54F. 4. Sustaining the depreciation computation of Rs. 64,350. 5. Violation of principles of natural justice due to lack of proper opportunity before passing the impugned order. Detailed Analysis: 1. Sustaining the Partial Reworking of the Claim for Tax Exemption under Section 54F: The assessee argued that the CIT (Appeals) erred in sustaining the partial reworking of the claim for tax exemption under Section 54F without assigning proper reasons and justification. The CIT (Appeals) upheld the Assessing Officer's decision, noting that the assessee was not eligible for exemption under Section 54F because he had purchased another residential house within a year after the transfer of the original asset. The Tribunal supported this view, stating that the assessee violated the specific provision of Section 54F, which disallows exemption if more than one residential house is purchased within a year of the transfer. 2. Misconstruction of Section 54F Regarding the Reinvestment in Two Units: The assessee contended that the CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the misconstruction of Section 54F would vitiate the decision. The Tribunal observed that the CIT (Appeals) correctly interpreted the law, emphasizing that the investments in two distinct properties on different dates could not be construed as one residential unit eligible for exemption under Section 54F. The Tribunal noted that the relevant case law cited by the assessee, including the decision of the Madras High Court in CIT vs. V.R. Karpagam, was not applicable as it pertained to joint development agreements where multiple units in the same project were considered as one block. 3. Misreading of the Decision of the Madras High Court on Multiple Units' Eligibility for Tax Exemption under Section 54F: The assessee argued that the CIT (Appeals) misread the decision of the Madras High Court, which should have allowed exemption for multiple units under Section 54F. The Tribunal clarified that the High Court's decision in V.R. Karpagam was context-specific, dealing with joint development agreements where multiple units were part of the same project. In contrast, the assessee's case involved purchasing two distinct properties on different dates, which did not meet the criteria for exemption under Section 54F. 4. Sustaining the Depreciation Computation of Rs. 64,350: The assessee claimed that the CIT (Appeals) erred in sustaining the depreciation computation without proper justification. However, the Tribunal did not specifically address this issue in detail, focusing primarily on the Section 54F exemption matter. The Tribunal upheld the CIT (Appeals)'s decision, implicitly supporting the depreciation computation. 5. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice Due to Lack of Proper Opportunity Before Passing the Impugned Order: The assessee contended that there was no proper opportunity given before passing the impugned order, violating the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal did not find merit in this argument, as the assessee had the opportunity to present his case before the CIT (Appeals) and the Tribunal. The Tribunal concluded that due process was followed, and the assessee's appeal was dismissed. Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the CIT (Appeals)'s decision, denying the exemption under Section 54F for purchasing two residential properties on different dates. The Tribunal found that the assessee violated the specific provisions of Section 54F and that the cited case laws were not applicable to the facts of the case. The appeal was dismissed, and the CIT (Appeals)'s order was affirmed.
|
