2024 (11) TMI 169 - HC - Income Tax

LTCG - Exemption u/s 54F - non-investment of the sale consideration or portion thereof in the designated capital gains - HELD THAT - In view of the law laid down in Shri. K. Ramachandra Rao 2015 (4) TMI 620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT to the effect that mere non-deposit of the sale consideration or portion thereof in a designated capital gains account would not deprive or come in the way of the petitioner from claiming exemption from payment of capital gains tax, that the impugned reassessment order and notices are contrary to law and the aforesaid judgments of the Court and the same deserves to be quashed. Decided in favour of assessee.

Issues Involved:

1. Validity of the reassessment order under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act.
2. Legitimacy of the demand notice under Section 156 of the Income Tax Act.
3. Appropriateness of the penalty notice under Section 274 read with Section 270A of the Income Tax Act.
4. Compliance with Section 54F of the Income Tax Act regarding exemption from capital gains tax.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Reassessment Order:

The petitioner challenged the reassessment order dated 28.03.2022, issued under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, on the grounds that it was contrary to the facts and law. The petitioner had sold an industrial land and invested part of the proceeds in purchasing a residential site and constructing a house within the prescribed periods, thereby claiming exemption from long-term capital gains tax. The initial assessment order accepted the petitioner's returns, but a subsequent notice under Section 148 indicated potential escaped income, leading to the reassessment. The court found that the reassessment order was contrary to the law as established in previous judgments, where non-deposit in a capital gains account did not preclude exemption if the sale proceeds were invested in construction within the stipulated time.

2. Legitimacy of the Demand Notice:

The demand notice under Section 156, issued alongside the reassessment order, was also contested. The petitioner argued that the demand was unjustified as the investment in the residential site and construction was completed within the statutory period, thus qualifying for capital gains tax exemption under Section 54F. The court, referencing prior case law, concluded that the demand notice was unwarranted since the petitioner complied with the investment requirements for exemption, and the non-deposit in a capital gains account was not a disqualifying factor.

3. Appropriateness of the Penalty Notice:

The penalty notice under Section 274 read with Section 270A was issued for alleged non-compliance with capital gains tax obligations. The petitioner contended that the penalty was inappropriate given the compliance with Section 54F conditions. The court, aligning with its findings on the reassessment and demand notices, determined that the penalty notice was unjustified. The petitioner's actions were consistent with the legal provisions for claiming exemption, and the penalty was therefore quashed.

4. Compliance with Section 54F:

Central to the case was whether the petitioner fulfilled the conditions of Section 54F for exemption from capital gains tax. The petitioner had invested the sale proceeds in constructing a residential house within three years, as required. The respondents argued that failure to deposit the remaining sale proceeds in a designated capital gains account precluded exemption. However, the court, referencing precedent, held that actual investment in construction within the prescribed period sufficed for exemption, irrespective of deposit in a capital gains account. The court reiterated that the legislative intent of Section 54F was to facilitate investment in residential property, not to mandate deposit in a specific account.

Conclusion:

The court allowed the petition, quashing the reassessment order, demand notice, and penalty notice. It emphasized that the petitioner's compliance with Section 54F, through timely investment in residential construction, entitled them to exemption from capital gains tax, rendering the impugned notices and orders legally untenable.

← Previous Next →