2018 (11) TMI 1323 - AT - Income Tax

Deduction u/s 54F - failure to comply with the statutory requirement - purchase of property within stipulated time u/s 139 - sources funded from the bank loan - whether the assessee would be entitled for deduction u/s 54F even if the assessee acquired the new property from the bank loan instead of utilizing the sale consideration for the purpose of acquiring the new property - Held that - This issue has been considered by the Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. R. Srinivasan 2013 (1) TMI 213 - MADRAS HIGH COURT relied upon by the assessee and held that the assessee is entitled for deduction u/s 54F even if the source was funded from the bank loan. This issue on similar facts was considered in the case of Smt. Sumati Siva Kumari Vs. ITO 2016 (12) TMI 447 - ITAT CHENNAI for the assessment year 2013-14 for which the Accountant Member is one of the signatories held that the assessee is entitled for deduction u/s 54F even if the amount is sourced from the bank loan. In the instant case, there is no dispute that the assessee has purchased the property within the stipulated time also we hold that the assessee is entitled for deduction u/s 54F on the amount invested for purchase of new property from the bank loans also. - decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Deduction under Section 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Utilization of sale consideration for claiming deduction under Section 54F.
3. Eligibility for deduction if the new property is purchased using a loan.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Deduction under Section 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The core issue in this case was whether the assessee was entitled to claim a deduction under Section 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee had filed a return of income admitting a total income of ?1,97,000 for the assessment year 2010-11. The Assessing Officer (AO) observed that the assessee had not admitted capital gains from the sale of property at Madhuranagar, Vijayawada. The assessee claimed a deduction under Section 54F, asserting that there was no liability for capital gains since the proceeds were used to purchase an apartment in Kesava Heights. However, the AO disallowed the claim on the grounds that the investment was not made before the due date of filing the return of income under Section 139(1).

2. Utilization of Sale Consideration for Claiming Deduction under Section 54F:
The AO's contention was that the assessee did not invest the unutilized consideration in the capital gains account before the due date for filing the return of income, as required under Section 54F(4). The AO further noted that the consideration for the purchase of the new property was paid after the due date for furnishing the return of income under Section 139(1). The assessee argued that the investment was made before the extended due date under Section 139(4), relying on various judicial precedents. The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal, holding that the assessee was eligible for exemption under Section 139(4) but disallowed the deduction for the amount invested from a housing loan.

3. Eligibility for Deduction if the New Property is Purchased Using a Loan:
The CIT(A) observed that the assessee had purchased the new property using a housing loan from Divan Housing Finance Corporation and allowed the deduction only for the amount paid from the assessee's own funds. The assessee argued that the source of funds is immaterial for claiming deduction under Section 54F and relied on judicial precedents, including the decisions of the Karnataka High Court and the Madras High Court, which supported the view that the deduction is allowable even if the investment is made from borrowed funds. The Tribunal, after considering the arguments and relevant case laws, held that the assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 54F for the entire amount invested in the new property, including the amount sourced from the bank loan.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the assessee is entitled to the deduction under Section 54F for the amount invested in the new property, irrespective of whether the funds were sourced from the sale consideration or a bank loan. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the appeal of the assessee was allowed. The Tribunal emphasized that Section 54F does not mandate that the investment must be made from the sale consideration received from the original asset, as long as the new property is purchased within the stipulated time frame.