2021 (9) TMI 38 - AT - Income Tax

Long term capital gain - Addition on protective basis - assessee has claimed deduction u/s 54F of the Act against Long Term Capital Gain - HELD THAT - There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the addition was made on the protective basis. As stated by the assessee that the assessment has been made on substantive basis in Assessment Year 2012-13 which is not controverted by Revenue. We, therefore, direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made in this year on protective basis after verifying that the income of the assessee has been assessed to tax in the correct Assessment Year i.e.2012-13. The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms as indicate above

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of assessment order passed by JCIT Range-32 New Delhi
2. Taxability of long term capital gains in the relevant assessment year
3. Disallowance of rebate claimed under section 54
4. Eligibility of investment made by the assessee in a residential house under section 54

Analysis:

Issue 1: Validity of assessment order
The appeal pertains to the assessment year 2013-14 and challenges the order of Ld. CIT(A)-11, New Delhi dated 03.04.2018. The appellant contested the assessment order passed by the JCIT Range-32 New Delhi as unjust, illegal, and arbitrary. The appellant sought to quash the order passed on a protective basis. The Tribunal noted the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee and proceeded to address each contention individually.

Issue 2: Taxability of long term capital gains
The lower authorities disputed the long term capital gains declared by the assessee for the relevant assessment year, asserting that it should be taxable in AY 2013-14. The appellant argued against this treatment, claiming that the capital gains should be taxable in the same year alone. The Tribunal examined the facts and submissions, ultimately directing the Assessing Officer to verify and delete the addition made on a protective basis, considering that the income had already been assessed on a substantive basis in AY 2012-13.

Issue 3: Disallowance of rebate under section 54
The appellant contested the disallowance of the rebate claimed under section 54, amounting to ?2,72,76,602. The Tribunal considered this argument, highlighting that the action of disallowing the rebate was unjust, illegal, and arbitrary. The Tribunal directed that this addition be deleted in full, acknowledging the appellant's claim.

Issue 4: Eligibility of investment under section 54
The appellant raised concerns regarding the disallowance of the deduction under section 54 for the investment made in a residential house. The appellant argued that the investment should be covered under section 54, and therefore, the deduction should be allowed. The Tribunal reviewed the contentions and directed that the investment made by the assessee in a residential house should be considered under section 54, emphasizing that the disallowance was unjust, illegal, and arbitrary.

In conclusion, the Tribunal partially allowed the appeal of the assessee after considering the arguments presented and verifying the assessment details. The decision was pronounced at the Virtual Hearing on 31st August 2021, in the presence of both parties involved.