Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO
आदेश / O R D E R
PER SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER :
This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Chennai (hereinafter called as ‘CIT(A)’) in dated 13.12.2018 for the assessment year 2014-15.
2 -: 2. Shri Koushik & Shri. S. Sridhar represented on behalf of the Assessee and Ms. R. Anitha, JCIT represented on behalf of the Revenue.
It was submitted by the learned Authorized Representative that the assessee is an individual who has sold two residential properties, one on 18.09.2013 and another on 23.01.2014. It was a submission that the total consideration was Rs.2,24,80,000/-. It was a submission that the assessee had deposited the capital gains amount in the Capital Gains Account Scheme on 11.08.2014 to the extent of Rs.90,000/- and on 14.08.2014 to an extent of Rs.18,50,000/-. It was a submission admittedly there was a delay in depositing the funds in the capital gains account scheme. It was a submission that, however the assessee had purchased a property on 04.09.2014 at Neelangarai and had constructed a residential house on the said property and the assessee had invested an amount of Rs.1,86,08,364/- till the date of assessment, i.e. 30.12.2016. It was a submission that the capital gains liability was only to an extent of Rs.1,08,50,000/-. It was a submission that the assessee having constructed the residential house within the prescribed three years period, the assessee was entitled to the benefit of Section 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
In reply the learned Departmental Representative drew our attention to page no.26 to 43 of the paper book which was the copies of the two sale deeds. It was a submission that what had been sold by the assessee was only undivided interest in the land and no residential property had been sold. The 3 -: learned Departmental Representative specifically drew our attention to the Schedule of the sale deeds which clearly mentioned that what was sold was only undivided interests in land. In short, as per the deed dated 18th September, 2013 what has been sold is 425 Sq.ft of undivided interest, out of the land measuring 2481.50 Sq.ft for a consideration of Rs.20.00 lakhs, though the value of the property for the stamp duty was Rs.68.00 lakhs, vide sale deed dated 23rd January, 2014, what has been sold is 980 Sq.ft of the undivided share of land out of the 2481.50 Sq.ft for a consideration of Rs.1,56,80,000. It was thus a submission that the benefit of Section 54 was available when the capital was transferred as a residential house. It was a submission that residential house having not been transferred, the benefit of Section 54 was not available to the assessee.
In reply, the learned Departmental Representative vehemently supported the order of the learned Assessing Officer and the learned CIT(A).
We have considered the rival submission and perused the materials available on record.
The perusal of the computation of total income as shown in Page Nos.13 & 14 of the paper book representing the statement of total income along with the return shows that the assessee has claimed long term capital gains in respect of the sale of immovable property and the computation shows ground floor and first floor. The computation also shows the construction costs and the statement of total income shows the transfer of the residential
4 -: property. This no way tallies with the sale deed. It is also noticed that the assessee has claimed exemption u/s.54 of the Act. The perusal of the order of the learned CIT(A) shows that even before the CIT(A), the assessee is claiming exemption u/s.54 and is claiming to have sold residential property. The perusal of the assessment order also shows in para-4 that the Assessing Officer has considered what has been sold as two residential flats. The sale deed shows otherwise. In the Grounds of appeal also before the Tribunal in Ground No.2, the assessee claims to have sold two residential flats. Thus, as the facts are not clear and are not coming out of the orders of the lower authorities, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for verification as to whether what has been sold by the assessee is the undivided interest in the land or what has been sold are two residential flats and to re-adjudicate the issue in respect of the computation of capital gains denovo in accordance with law.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 26th November, 2019 in Chennai.