2016 (8) TMI 374 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance of Long Term Capital Gain in connection with the furniture and fixtures attached with the transfer of tenancy rights - Held that - The tenancy right has only been surrender in the property and there is no transfer of any kind of furniture and fixture in the lease deed. Transfer of furniture and fixture is not part and parcel of the agreement entered into by the appellant with the landlord. There is no bifurcation of the value of surrendering of furniture and fixture. Earlier the tenancy property was in possession of A.K. Industries in which assessee was a partner with his father. No doubt at this time the furniture and fixture if any was belonging to the partnership firm. The assessee has no right to claim the ownership of furniture and fixture of the partnership firm. Since agreement dated 12th May 2008 nowhere speaks about the transfer of furniture and fixture, therefore, in the said circumstances the claim of the assessee with regard to the furniture and fixture does not seem justifiable, therefore, CIT(A) has no doubt rightly confirmed the order passed by the Assessing Officer which does not require to be interfere with at this appellate stage. Hence, this issue is decided in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. Exemption u/s.54F - Held that - The assessee has received consideration of ₹ 2,75,00,000/- on transfer of tenancy right and after claiming brokerage he received the net consideration to the tune of ₹ 2,71,50,000/-, out of which a sum of ₹ 30,00,000/- was invested in REC Bonds and amount of ₹ 1,07,58,450/- was invested in house property. The balance amount of ₹ 1,31,91,550/- remained unutilized was deposited in Capital Gain Saving Account Scheme which will be taxed after the expiry of three years after the date of transfer of Long Term Capital Asset i.e. on 17.05.2011 relevant to assessment year 2012-13 as per the provisions of sub section 4 of section 54F of the Act. The appellant paid the tax to the tune of ₹ 25,68,337/- on 29.08.2011. Consequently, the withdrawal of the money from his Capital Gain Deposit Saving Account nowhere attract the tax. No doubt in the said circumstances the CIT(A) has rightly decided these issues in favour of the assessee and against the revenue

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance of Long Term Capital Gain related to furniture and fixtures in connection with the transfer of tenancy rights.
2. Deletion of addition of &8377; 1,31,91,550/- under section 54F of the Income Tax Act.

Issue 1: Disallowance of Long Term Capital Gain:
The case involved the disallowance of Long Term Capital Gain of &8377; 7,23,907/- related to furniture and fixtures in connection with the transfer of tenancy rights. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim as the agreement did not mention the transfer of furniture and fixture, and the property was in possession of a partnership firm. The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance, stating that the claim was unjustifiable as the agreement did not include the transfer of furniture and fixture. The judgment favored the revenue, affirming the decisions of the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) due to the lack of evidence supporting the claim.

Issue 2: Deletion of addition under section 54F:
Under this issue, the deletion of addition of &8377; 1,31,91,550/- under section 54F of the Income Tax Act was contested. The revenue argued that the assessee had already purchased a residential house and could not claim further exemption under section 54F. However, the CIT(A) allowed the exemption, stating that the unutilized amount was deposited in the Capital Gain Saving Account Scheme and would be taxed after three years. The CIT(A) found that the action of the Assessing Officer in restricting the exemption was not in accordance with the Act. Consequently, the judgment favored the assessee, upholding the decision of the CIT(A) and dismissing the appeals filed by both the assessee and the revenue.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issues of disallowance of Long Term Capital Gain and the deletion of addition under section 54F. The decisions were made based on the provisions of the Income Tax Act and the evidence presented in the case. The judgment provided detailed reasoning for each issue, ultimately resulting in the dismissal of the appeals filed by both parties.