2019 (8) TMI 764 - AT - Income Tax

Transfer of capital asset - sale of agricultural land to 6 persons - assessee claimed that consideration of two person was not received as cheque were bounced, he was still the legal owner and has not transferred the land and therefore assessee was not liable for capital gains tax - HELD THAT - We find that CIT(A) while upholding the order of AO has noted that the sale deed was registered on 27.08.2012 in favour of six persons and in the sale deed the share of six buyers were clearly mentioned. The registration charges and stamp duty were also paid. He has further noted that no civil suit was filed by the assessee for the alleged dishonour of cheques issued by the purchasers. Before us, no fallacy in the findings of CIT(A) has been pointed out by the assessee. Further, no evidence of filing of suit by the assessee has also been placed on record by the assessee. Considering the totality of the aforesaid facts, we find no reason to interfere with the order of Ld.CIT(A). Thus, the ground No.2 of the assessee is dismissed. Disallowance of expenses incurred for transfer of capital asset - HELD THAT - The issue in the present ground is with respect to claim of deduction of the stamp duty and other charges stated to have been paid by the assessee while computing capital gains. Before us, Ld.A.R. has not controverted the findings of Ld.CIT(A) and further he has not controverted the contention of Ld. D.R. with regard to the payment of stamp duty and other charges being not emanating from the sale deed which has been executed for the sale of property. In such a situation, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of Ld.CIT(A). Thus, the ground No.3 of the assessee is dismissed. Deduction u/s 54F and 54B - time limit for making investment - HELD THAT - It is a fact that the assessee had invested ₹ 55 lacs in the construction of residential house for which assessee had claimed deduction u/s 54F of the Act and ₹ 35 lakhs was invested towards purchase of agricultural land for which he had claimed deduction u/s 54B. The aforesaid investments for which the deduction has been claimed have been made after the due date for filing of return of income u/s 139(1) but before the filing of return u/s 139(4). Therefore, in a situation, when the entire amount which was subject to capital gains tax has been utilized before the filing of return of income, then the deduction u/s 54F and 54B cannot be denied to the assessee. Further since the entire amount which was subject to capital gains was utilized for the purpose of construction of new house and purchase of agricultural land, then there was no question of its deposit in notified Bank account in terms of Sec.54F(4). Considering the aforesaid facts, we are of the view that assessee is eligible for deduction u/s 54F and 54B

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Assessment of total income.
2. Transfer of capital asset and capital gains liability.
3. Disallowance of expenses incurred for transfer of capital asset.
4. Calculation of exemption under section 54F.
5. Disallowance of deduction under section 54B.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Assessment of Total Income:
The assessee contested the assessment of his total income at ?51,37,354/- against the returned income of ?6,68,190/-. The tribunal dismissed this ground as general in nature, requiring no adjudication.

2. Transfer of Capital Asset and Capital Gains Liability:
The AO determined that the assessee had sold agricultural land for ?1,46,50,000/- and was liable for capital gains. The assessee argued that due to dishonoured cheques from two buyers, he remained the legal owner and thus not liable for capital gains. However, the AO and Ld.CIT(A) found that the sale deed was registered, and possession was given to buyers. The tribunal upheld this finding, noting no civil suit was filed for the dishonoured cheques, thus confirming the capital gains liability.

3. Disallowance of Expenses Incurred for Transfer of Capital Asset:
The assessee claimed ?9,02,000/- towards stamp duty and other charges as expenses. The AO disallowed this, noting the receipts were in the purchaser's name. Ld.CIT(A) upheld this, stating such expenses are attributable to the purchaser. The tribunal found no reason to interfere, as the assessee did not provide contrary evidence, dismissing this ground.

4. Calculation of Exemption under Section 54F:
The AO granted a deduction of ?53,91,397/- under section 54F for the construction of a residential house, against the assessee's claim of ?55,00,000/-. The Ld.CIT(A) upheld this, citing the requirement to deposit unutilized capital gains in a specified account before the due date of return filing. The tribunal, however, noted that the assessee had utilized the entire amount before filing the return under section 139(4), thus allowing the full claim of ?55,00,000/-.

5. Disallowance of Deduction under Section 54B:
The AO disallowed a deduction of ?35,00,000/- under section 54B, as the investment in agricultural land was made after the due date for filing the return. Ld.CIT(A) upheld this, emphasizing the requirement to deposit unutilized capital gains in a specified account before the due date. The tribunal, however, allowed the deduction, noting the investment was made before filing the return under section 139(4), thus fulfilling the requirement for the deduction.

Conclusion:
The tribunal partly allowed the appeal, upholding the AO's and Ld.CIT(A)'s findings on the capital gains liability and disallowance of expenses but allowing the full claims under sections 54F and 54B. The decision underscores the importance of utilizing or depositing capital gains within specified timelines to avail of deductions.