V.SHYAMANAND,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that crucial documents like the date of purchase of the new property and details of construction were missing. It also noted that a portion of the constructed building was commercial, making it difficult to determine eligibility for deduction under Section 54F.
What were the facts?
The assessee claimed exemption under Section 54 of the Income-tax Act on the sale of a property and construction of a new building. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim, stating that the property sold was vacant land and thus Section 54F should apply, but even that was disallowed as the property was assessed as non-residential.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 54/54F for the construction of a new property when the sale was of vacant land and the new construction had a commercial component. The lack of crucial documentation prevented a definitive decision.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN & SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO
आदेश /O R D E R
PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -2, Chennai, dated 03.03.2017 and pertains to assessment year 2013-14.
The notice of hearing was served on the assessee by RPAD.
The Registry has placed on record the postal acknowledgement as proof of service of notice. Inspite of service of notice by RPAD, the assessee chose not to appear before this Tribunal when the appeal was taken up for hearing. Therefore, we heard the Ld. Departmental Representative and proceeded to dispose the appeal on merit.
Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, the Ld. D.R. submitted that the only issue arises for consideration is disallowance of the claim of the assessee under Section 54 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). According to the Ld. D.R., the assessee sold a property and constructed another building. The assessee sold the land at Padi for a sum of ₹2,03,00,000/- on 24.01.2013. The assessee admitted capital gain of ₹69,64,628/- and claimed exemption under Section 54 of the Act in respect of a new house property. According to the Ld. D.R., the cost of construction of the building was ₹1,00,65,780/-. The Assessing Officer found that what was sold by the assessee is a vacant land, therefore, the assessee can claim deduction only under Section 54F of the Act. According to the Ld. D.R., the Assessing Officer found that the Municipal Corporation of Chennai assessed the property as non-residential. Therefore, the assessee was found to be not entitled for deduction under Section 54F also. On a query from the Bench, as per the valuation report, it appears that the total built-up area was 7053.81 sq.ft., out of which, 1021.25 sq.ft. was found to be commercial, therefore, why proportionate allowance under Section 54F of the Act in respect of residential portion could be allowed? The Ld. D.R. submitted that the property was assessed as non-residential property by the Municipal Corporation, therefore, the assessee is not entitled for deduction under Section 54F also.
Having heard the Ld. D.R., we perused the material available on record. The Assessing Officer found that the assessee started construction of the property before the sale of property, therefore, not admissible for deduction. This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that in view of the language employed in Section 54F of the Act, the assessee can claim under Section 54F of the Act in respect of investment made within a period of one year before the date of sale of property in respect of purchase. However, the assessee may also claim the cost of construction if it is made within three years after the date of sale of the property. In this case, the date of purchase of new property is not available on record. The assessee appears to have invested in the construction of the property from the financial year 2011-12 to 2013-14. Moreover, out of total construction of 7053.81 sq.ft., 1021.25 sq.ft. of the building appears to have been commercial in nature. From the valuation report, it appears that there are some residential portions also constructed.
Moreover, copy of property tax assessment is not available on record. Therefore, this Tribunal is not in a position to decide whether the assessee has constructed the building within the prescribed period or the assessee has constructed commercial complex or a portion of which was commercial in nature.
Since the material documents are not available on record, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the matter needs to be re-examined by the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, orders of both the authorities below are set aside and the entire issue raised by the assessee is remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer shall re-examine the matter and bring on record the date of purchase of the new asset and whether the assessee has deposited in the Capital gain account as required under statutory provision in respect of the capital gain which was not utilised before the due date of return of income and thereafter decide the issue afresh in accordance with law, after giving a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
More judgments on Section 54
- Renu Arun Talwar, Mumbai vs Circle 17(1), MumbaiITA 204/MUM/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
- Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(2), Ahmedabad vs Manan Arati Patel, AhmedabadITA 923/AHD/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed6 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
- Rohitbhai Jivrambhai Patel, Vadodara vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward 3(1)(2), VadodaraITA 679/AHD/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2018-19
- Rohitbhai Jivrambhai Patel, Vadodara vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward 3(1)(2), VadodaraITA 679/AHD/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2018-19
- Dy. Commissioner of Income… vs Thomas Myladiyil Augustine, AhmedabadITA 1131/AHD/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2022-23
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Sita Enterprises vs. Office Of The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Capri Global Capital LTD Through Represented By Its Law Officer Mr. Varun Kaljoria vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal SecretaryMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Sri Tatiparthy Venkata Swamy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 25 Oct 2026
- Piyush Shantilal Veera vs. State Of U.P.Allahabad · 23 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Pooja Shri Traders vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - 1Madras · 23 Oct 2026