2018 (10) TMI 2018 - AT - Income Tax

LTCG - Exemption u/s 54F - house was habitable or not? - As per the AO the expenses were held to be made to make the house luxurious and comfortable hence the expenditure did not come in the ambit of Section 54F - whether the house was habitable at the time of purchase or it genuinely required repairing or remodeling to make it habitable? - HELD THAT - It is pertinent to note that there is an observation of the Assessing Officer that the house was habitable and given for rent for 7 months. But the Assessing Officer has only gone through the spot verification conducted by sub-registrar that the property was habitable. We find that an identical issue come up before in case of Rahana Siraj vs. CIT 2015 (1) TMI 1421 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT which was relied by the Ld. AR. In light of the above decision, the claim of the assessee u/s 54F of the Act is just and proper. Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues involved:
- Appeal against orders dated 23/1/2012 for Assessment Year 2009-10.
- Exclusion of costs incurred for making a house habitable from the cost of improvement in the Residential House.
- Claim of deduction under Section 54F of the Act.
- Interpretation of the term "habitability" in relation to the capital gains.

Analysis:

1. Exclusion of costs for making the house habitable:
The appeals challenged the exclusion of costs incurred for making the house habitable from the cost of improvement in the Residential House. The Assessing Officer made an addition to the Long Term Capital Gain based on the assumption that the expenses were made to make the house luxurious and comfortable, thus not falling under Section 54F. The appellant argued that the house was very old and required substantial capital expenditure to be habitable. The appellant maintained that the expenses were genuine and necessary for comfortable living. The Assessing Officer's estimation of repairs at a fixed rate without proper basis was also contested. The appellant cited various decisions to support their claim. The Tribunal referred to a similar case before the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court, where it was held that expenses for modifications and improvements on a habitable asset are eligible for deduction under Section 54F. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and allowed the appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 18/RPR/2014.

2. Claim of deduction under Section 54F of the Act:
The appellant claimed a deduction under Section 54F of the Act for the purchase of a ready-built house and further expenses incurred to make it habitable. The Assessing Officer accepted the deduction for the purchase of the house but questioned the additional expenses. The CIT (A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. However, the Tribunal, relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court, held that the expenses incurred to modify, alter, and improve the habitable asset are part of the cost of the new asset. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 18/RPR/2014 and also in ITA No. 148/RPR/2014, as the factual aspects were similar and undisputed by the Departmental Representative.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed both appeals, emphasizing that expenses incurred to make a habitable asset more suitable for living are eligible for deduction under Section 54F of the Act. The judgment highlighted the importance of considering the actual need for modifications and improvements in determining the cost of the new asset for capital gains purposes.