2019 (8) TMI 407 - AT - Income Tax

Exemption u/s 54 - ₹ 75 lacs has been paid by the appellant though jointly held with his wife, who is separately assessed to tax and had made separate deposit of ₹ 50 lacs in Capital Gain Account Scheme - multiple flats constructed have to be construed as one house - HELD THAT - Assessee has submitted computation of income of the assessee as well as wife of the assessee before the Assessing Officer as well as before the CIT(A). From the perusal of the same it can be seen that the assessee duly deposited ₹ 75,00,000/- which is his share in Capital Gain Accounts before 31.03.2011. The assessee demolished the existing residential property which was jointly owned by him and constructed four new flats but has claimed only as per his own share excluding the wife s share as well. All the criteria of Section 54 was fulfilled by the assessee. In fact assessee s wife got the relief for her share as claimed by her from the Revenue in respect of Capital Gains Scheme. Thus, the Assessing Officer should have not rejected assessee s claim on the different footing which was rightly claimed by the assessee. Therefore, Assessing Officer as well as CIT(A) was not right in making the addition on this account.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Appeal against order disallowing exemption under Section 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year 2011-12.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Ground No. 2 - Disallowance of Exemption under Section 54:
The assessee sold a property and claimed exemption under Section 54 for Long Term Capital Gains. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim, despite the assessee depositing Rs. 75,00,000 in the Capital Gain Accounts Scheme before the due date. The assessee demolished an existing property and constructed new flats, arguing that this constituted "reconstruction" eligible for exemption. The AR cited relevant case laws supporting this interpretation, emphasizing that the new construction was distinct from renovation. The AR also highlighted that the multiple flats should be considered as one house for the purpose of deduction under Section 54. The Tribunal agreed with the AR's arguments, allowing the appeal on this ground.

2. Ground No. 3 and 4 - Partial Relief under Section 54:
The CIT(A) provided only partial relief to the assessee under Section 54, despite the assessee depositing Rs. 75 lakhs in the Capital Gains Scheme. The assessee's wife also made a separate deposit of Rs. 50 lakhs in the same scheme. The Tribunal noted that the assessee fulfilled all criteria under Section 54 and rightly claimed exemption for his share. The Tribunal emphasized that the wife received relief for her share from the Revenue, and there was no double taxation involved. Therefore, the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) erred in rejecting the claim based on different grounds. The Tribunal allowed the appeal on these grounds as well.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, finding in favor of the assessee on all grounds. The judgment highlighted the correct application of Section 54, the distinction between reconstruction and renovation, and the treatment of multiple flats as one house for exemption purposes. The Tribunal emphasized that all relevant criteria were met by the assessee, leading to the allowance of the appeal.