2021 (12) TMI 800 - AT - Income Tax

Exemption u/s 54F - investment made in the constructed area comprising of multiple residential flats (more than one in number), which was received by the assessee - AO restricted the exemption u/s. 54F claimed only to the extent of investment in one residential flat and denied on the other residential flats - HELD THAT - Issue decided in KONDAL RAO VADDEPALLY, SUDARSHAN RAO INENI, VADDEPALLY DAMODAR RAO 2021 (12) TMI 730 - ITAT HYDERABAD as held that assessee is eligible to claim deduction u/s 54F of the Act in more than one house. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Issues Involved:

1. Legitimacy of assessee's claim under Section 54F of the Income Tax Act.
2. Consideration of multiple residential flats as part of reinvestment under Section 54F.
3. Applicability of judicial precedents to the facts of the case.
4. Interpretation of legislative intent behind the amendment to Section 54F by Finance Act 2014.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legitimacy of Assessee's Claim under Section 54F:

The primary issue is whether the CIT(A) was justified in directing the Assessing Officer (AO) to allow the assessee's claim under Section 54F of the Income Tax Act. The assessee had entered into a development agreement and received multiple residential flats as consideration. The AO restricted the exemption under Section 54F to only one flat, while the CIT(A) allowed the exemption for all flats received. The Tribunal referred to several judicial precedents, including the decision of the Hon'ble AP High Court in the case of Syed Ali Adil, which held that exemption under Section 54F can be allowed for multiple units.

2. Consideration of Multiple Residential Flats as Part of Reinvestment:

The assessee argued that the investment in multiple residential flats should be considered for exemption under Section 54F. The CIT(A) agreed, noting that prior to the amendment by the Finance Act 2014, the section did not restrict the investment to only one residential house. The Tribunal supported this view, citing the amendment which clarified that "a residential house" was substituted with "one residential house in India" effective from 01.04.2015, implying that multiple units could be considered for exemption before this date.

3. Applicability of Judicial Precedents:

The Tribunal examined various judicial precedents cited by the assessee, including the decisions of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. Geeta Dugal and the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in CIT Vs. D. Ananda Basappa. These cases supported the view that exemption under Section 54F can be claimed for multiple units. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s reliance on these precedents was appropriate and upheld the decision to allow the exemption for multiple units.

4. Interpretation of Legislative Intent Behind the Amendment to Section 54F by Finance Act 2014:

The Tribunal noted that the amendment to Section 54F by the Finance Act 2014, which specified "one residential house in India," was effective from 01.04.2015. This amendment indicated that prior to this date, the law did not restrict the exemption to a single residential house. The Tribunal concluded that the CIT(A) correctly interpreted the legislative intent and allowed the exemption for multiple residential flats received by the assessee.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A), allowing the assessee's claim under Section 54F for multiple residential flats received as consideration. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue, finding that the CIT(A)'s decision was consistent with judicial precedents and the legislative intent behind the amendment to Section 54F. The Tribunal directed the AO to verify the allotment of flats and recompute the capital gain accordingly, providing the assessee with an opportunity to substantiate their claim.

← Previous Next →