9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (8) TMI 819 - AT - Income TaxEntitlement to exemption claimed u/s 54 - CIT(A) allowed the claim - Held that - As the assessee infact using one residential unit consisting of four flats and therefore on sale of such residential unit the LTCG from the sale of residential unit of flat no. 1201A in Evita building was eligible for exemption u/s 54 of the Act in purchasing the residential unit (3 flats) 2203A 2203B 2203C & 2203D in Richmond . Thus we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the CIT(A) hence this Ground of appeal raised by the Revenue is dismissed. - Decided in favour of assessee. Addition on account of cessation of liability of unsecured loan - CIT(A) allowed the claim - Held that - CIT(A) after appreciating the fact of the case rightly come to the conclusion that assessee was not having trading liability u/s 41(1) of the Act. The unsecured loan was given by the close relative and the same is duly qualified as relative as per clause (v) of sub-section (2) of section 56 of the Act. Thus we hold that the order of CIT(A) does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity thus this Ground of appeal raised by Revenue has also no force and the same is dismissed.- Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Long Term Capital Gain and exemption claimed under section 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is allowable. 2. Whether the deletion of addition on account of cessation of liability of unsecured loan is correct. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Long Term Capital Gain and Exemption under Section 54: The Revenue challenged the CIT(A)’s decision allowing the assessee’s claim for exemption under Section 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer (AO) had disallowed the exemption, arguing that the assessee sold four separate flats and purchased three separate flats, thus not qualifying for the exemption. The AO assessed the income at ?3,71,60,094/- after denying the exemption. The assessee contended that the four flats sold were part of a single residential unit with a common kitchen, passage, and entrance, supported by a single electricity meter. Similarly, the three flats purchased were also part of a single residential unit. The CIT(A) accepted this argument, noting that both the sold and purchased units were contiguous and used as single residential units, despite being documented through separate agreements. The Tribunal referred to Section 54 of the Income Tax Act, which allows exemption on capital gains if the gains are reinvested in a residential house. The Tribunal cited precedents, including the Special Bench of Mumbai Tribunal in ITO vs. Ms. Sushila M. Jhaveri and Karnataka High Court in D. Ananda Basappa, which supported the view that multiple units used as a single residential house qualify for exemption. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee was indeed using one residential unit consisting of four flats and thus eligible for exemption under Section 54 for the purchase of the new residential unit consisting of three flats. The Tribunal found no illegality or infirmity in the CIT(A)’s order and dismissed the Revenue’s appeal on this ground. 2. Deletion of Addition on Account of Cessation of Liability of Unsecured Loan: The Revenue also contested the CIT(A)’s decision to delete the addition on account of cessation of liability of an unsecured loan amounting to ?7,88,000/-. The AO had treated this amount as “Income from Other Sources” under Section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act, as the creditor, Mrs. Manuben Rathod, had passed away without leaving any legal heirs, implying that the liability ceased. The assessee argued that Mrs. Manuben Rathod, a close relative, had intended to gift her savings to the assessee, and since she had passed away, the liability was not required to be paid back. The CIT(A) accepted this argument, noting that the unsecured loan did not fall within the category of liability under Section 41(1) as no allowance/deduction had been made for this amount in earlier years. The CIT(A) also considered the loan as a gift under Section 56(2) of the Act. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s decision, agreeing that the unsecured loan was given by a close relative and qualified as a relative under Section 56(2). The Tribunal found no illegality or infirmity in the CIT(A)’s order and dismissed the Revenue’s appeal on this ground as well. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue’s appeal, upholding the CIT(A)’s decisions on both grounds. The assessee was entitled to the exemption under Section 54 for the capital gains reinvested in a single residential unit, and the addition on account of cessation of liability of the unsecured loan was correctly deleted by the CIT(A).
|
