9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Deduction under Section 54 of the IT Act. 2. Allowance of expenditure of Rs. 1,20,000 as brokerage. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Deduction under Section 54 of the IT Act: The main dispute revolves around the claim of deduction under Section 54 of the IT Act. The assessee sold immovable property on 3rd April 1995 and claimed exemption under Section 54, asserting that a new residential house was constructed using the sale proceeds. The construction of the new house allegedly commenced in March 1994 and completed on 15th April 1995. However, the occupancy certificate was issued on 6th March 1995, before the sale of the old house. The Assessing Officer (AO) rejected the claim on two grounds: - The land was purchased in December 1993, more than a year before the sale of the old property, making the claim under Section 54 inapplicable for the land purchase. - The construction was completed before the sale of the old house, as evidenced by the occupancy certificate dated 6th March 1995. The CIT(A) partially agreed with the AO, disallowing the deduction for the land purchase but allowing it for the construction, arguing that the construction was completed after the sale of the old property. The Revenue argued that the basic condition under Section 54, which requires the new property to be constructed within three years after the transfer of the old property, was not met as the construction was completed before the sale. The Tribunal examined the documents and judicial precedents, concluding that the construction was indeed completed before the sale of the old house. The occupancy certificate dated 6th March 1995 indicated the completion of the construction. The Tribunal rejected the argument that construction completion should be linked to obtaining a sewer connection, emphasizing that Section 54(1) refers to the completion of construction, not ancillary connections. The Tribunal cited the Gujarat High Court decision in Shanti Ben Gandhi vs. CIT, which upheld that construction completed before the transfer of the old property disqualifies the claim under Section 54. The Tribunal found no merit in the assessee's reliance on other judicial decisions, as they were distinguishable on facts. Conclusion: The Tribunal held that the assessee did not qualify for deduction under Section 54 as the construction was completed before the sale of the old house. Ground No. 1 was allowed in favor of the Revenue. 2. Allowance of Expenditure of Rs. 1,20,000 as Brokerage: The assessee claimed brokerage expenses of Rs. 1,20,000 for the sale of the residential house, paid to three individuals. The AO disallowed the claim due to insufficient evidence, noting that mere bank certificates were not enough to verify the payments. The CIT(A) allowed the claim, suggesting that the AO should have verified the facts from the bank or issued summons under Section 131 of the IT Act. The Tribunal reversed the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing that the onus was on the assessee to establish the genuineness of the brokerage payments. The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to discharge this onus, and mere bank certificates did not suffice to prove the payments were for brokerage. Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the AO's action in disallowing the brokerage expenditure of Rs. 1,20,000 while computing capital gains. Ground No. 2 was allowed in favor of the Revenue. Final Outcome: The appeal of the Revenue was allowed.
|
