2016 (5) TMI 874 - AT - Income Tax

Exemption under section 54F - whether the deemed consideration under section 50C of the I.T. Act is to be taken into consideration or the consideration mentioned in the sale deed only is to be taken into consideration? - Held that - The ultimate object and purpose of section 50C of the I.T. Act is to see that the undisclosed income of capital gains received by the assessee should be taxed and that the law should not encourage and permit the assessee to peg down the market value at their whims and fancy to avoid tax, but when the capital gain is assessed on notional basis, whatever amount is invested in the new residential house within the prescribed period under section 54 of the I.T. Act, the entire amount invested, should get benefit of deduction irrespective of the fact that the funds from other sources are utilised for new residential house Since the facts in the case of the assessee herein are similar to the facts in the case of Raj Babbar (2013 (1) TMI 237 - ITAT MUMBAI ), respectfully following the decision of the Coordinate Bench, we do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A).

Summary

Issues:
- Interpretation of section 54F for exemption eligibility based on deemed consideration under section 50C or consideration in sale deed.

Analysis:
1. The appeal by Revenue and cross-objection by the assessee involved a crucial issue regarding the eligibility for exemption under section 54F of the Income Tax Act. The primary question was whether the deemed consideration under section 50C or the consideration mentioned in the sale deed should be considered for allowing the exemption.

2. The case revolved around the assessee selling a plot for ?20 lakhs, with the buyers paying stamp duty, registration charges, etc., totaling ?89,60,000. The Assessing Officer (AO) invoked section 50C, considering the difference of ?69,60,000 as capital gain. However, the assessee claimed deduction under section 54F for investing ?1,37,15,550 in a new residential house. The AO held that only the sale consideration mentioned in the deed was eligible for exemption, not the deemed consideration under section 50C.

3. The Revenue, relying on previous decisions, argued that the "full value of the sale consideration" in section 54F refers to the consideration actually received by the assessee, not the deemed consideration under section 50C. On the other hand, the assessee, supported by CIT(A) and citing relevant case laws, contended that the entire amount invested should receive the deduction under section 54F.

4. The Tribunal analyzed the provisions of sections 45, 48, 50C, and 54F of the Act. Referring to the decision in Raj Babbar vs. ITO, it emphasized that the assessee should not be charged capital gains if the cost of the new asset is not less than the net consideration of the original asset. The Tribunal also distinguished the decision in Gouli Mahadevappa's case, highlighting the importance of the actual investment in the new asset for claiming the exemption under section 54F.

5. Additionally, the Karnataka High Court's decision in Gouli Mahadevappa vs. ITO further supported the view that the entire amount invested for a new residential house should receive the deduction under section 54F, irrespective of the funding source. The Tribunal found the cited decisions by the Revenue distinguishable on facts and upheld the order of CIT(A).

6. Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal by the Revenue and the cross-objection by the assessee, concluding that the assessee was entitled to the exemption under section 54F based on the actual investment made in the new residential house, following the principles established in relevant case laws.

7. The judgment was pronounced on 13.05.2016 by the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Hyderabad, with detailed analysis and reference to legal provisions and precedents to resolve the issue of exemption eligibility under section 54F of the Income Tax Act.