9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (4) TMI 99X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection 54F is a beneficial provision and the same should be construed liberally. For the purpose of exemption u/s 54F, the assessees must construct residential houses within three years from the date of transfer. Hence the assessees are not entitled to relief u/s 54F of the Act. Thus, we are of the opinion that there were no construction and the claims made by the assessees for exemption u/s 54F were factually unacceptable. Hence, we answer the question in favour of the Revenue and against the assessees. - HON'BLE R. BALASUBRAMANIAN., P. P. S. JANARTHANA RAJA, JJ. For the Appellant : Pushya Sitaraman, Adv. For the Respondent : R. Venkataraman, Sr. Counsel JUDGMENT P. P. S. JANARTHANA RAJA J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras, A Bench, referred the following question of law at the instance of the Revenue, under the direction of this court in T. C. P. Nos. 77 and 78 of 1998 dated July 29, 1998, for opinion of this court: Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal had valid materials to give a finding that the assessee had constructed a residential house before June 21, 1988, and thus eligible for exemption under section 54F of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e no new construction by the assessees. Therefore the assessees are not entitled to exemption under section 54F of the Act. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the assessees submitted that there were new constructions by both the assessees but they were unauthorised construction and the same were demolished later. Further, it was submitted that the buildings were constructed and plan was also made. Subsequently, they were demolished for the purpose of modernisation. Since the buildings were constructed and substantial amount of money was spent, the Revenue was not justified in bringing the whole amount to capital gains tax. Further it was contended that the Tribunal had given a factual finding that there were construction of new buildings and hence this court should not interfere with the factual finding of the Tribunal under reference. It is also emphasised that section 54F is a beneficial provision and hence the court should construe the said provision liberally. 5. We heard the arguments of both the sides. Certain dates are very much important for this case, which are as below: V. Pradeep Kumar V. Praveen Kumar (1) Date of sale of property in Moore Street (purchase and construction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as inserted by the Finance Act of 1982 with effect from April 1, 1983. The conditions precedent for getting exemption are: 1. Transfer of any long-term capital assets not being a residential house. 2. The assessee purchases within a period of one year before or two years after the date on which the transfer took place or constructs within a period of three years after the date of transfer, any residential house. 8. From a reading of the above, what we have to see in this case is whether the assessees had constructed residential houses within a period of three years after the date of transfer or not. From the above tabular column, it is clear that the date of sale of property was on June 22, 1985, and the date of purchase of property was on March 9, 1988, in the case of Sri V. Pradeep Kumar in Tax Case No. 31 of 2001 and April 6, 1988 in the case of Sri V. Praveen Kumar in Tax Case No. 32 of 2001. The assessees stated that they commenced the construction of new residential houses from April 15, 1988, and completed the construction on June 20, 1988. The due date for completing the construction was on June 20, 1988. The findings given by the Tribunal for each construction of new house ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her, we have also seen that the assessees got approval from the Corporation of Madras only on February 9, 1990, for demolishing the old existing building at the said plot, and the completion of the full demolition has been carried out by the assessee only at the end of March 1990. This evidence clearly goes to prove that the existing old building which was purchased, was completely demolished in March 1990 only. The burden is on the assessees to prove that they had actually constructed new residential houses for purpose of the exemption under section 54F of the Income-tax Act. It is stated by counsel for the assessees, that the assessees had constructed new residential houses, but they were unauthorised constructions and the same unauthorised constructions were later demolished for the purpose of modernisation. In this case, there is no tangible material to even infer that a residential house was constructed. One of the assessees says there was an extension to an existing structure and the other says the outhouse was demolished; a new construction was put up in its place and both being unauthorised, have been pulled down on their own voluntarily. Section 54F emphasises construction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... judicially acting or properly instructed as to the relevant law could have come to the determination reached by the Tribunal. This court, in the case of CIT v. Coromandel Indag Products P. Limited reported in [2004] 265 ITR 611, considered the scope of reference under section 256 of the Act and held as follows: As far as the decisions of the Supreme Court in Badal Ram Laxmi Narain v. CIT [1991] 191 ITR 296 and CIT v. Cellulose Products of India Ltd. [1991] 192 ITR 155 are concerned, it is axiomatic that the High Court should not interfere with the Tribunal's finding of fact even if another view is possible. The Supreme Court has also held that the High Court hearing a reference under the Income-tax Act does not exercise appellate or revisional or supervisory jurisdiction over the Appellate Tribunal and that it acts in a purely and advisory capacity. We are of the view that if the Tribunal, after considering the evidence produced before it on a question of fact, records a finding, this court will not interfere with such a finding unless the said finding is not supported by any evidence or is perverse or patently unreasonable. 10. In the present case, the finding of the Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
