ITO, WARD-3(2), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR vs. GAYA SANTARA, BHUBANESWAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 468/CTK/2014Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 July 2017AY 2008-098 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the Revenue's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the expression 'a residential house' under Section 54F includes multiple flats or residential units, following various High Court decisions. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to exemption for all four flats received.

What were the facts?

The assessee transferred land and received four flats in return as per a development agreement. The Assessing Officer denied exemption under Section 54F as the assessee acquired multiple independent residential units. The CIT(A) allowed exemption for only one flat.

What were the issues?

Whether the exemption under Section 54F is available for multiple residential units acquired by the assessee in exchange for land, and if the word 'a' in 'a residential house' implies only a single unit.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 54F

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(4)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK

Before: S/SHRI N.S SAINI & PAVAN KUMAR GADALE

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Agarwalla, AR
For Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR
Hearing: 26/07

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK

BEFORE S/SHRI N.S SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER

ITA No. 468/CTK/2014 Assessment Year :2008-09

Income Tax Officer, Ward- Vs. Gaya Santara, Plot No.63/A, 3(2), Bhubaneswar Sector-A, Zone-D, Mancheswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar. PAN/GIR No.ADQPS 3243 J (Appellant) .. ( Respondent)

ITA No. 483/CTK/2014 Assessment Year :2008-09

Gaya Santara, Plot No.63/A, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- Sector-A, Zone-D, 3(2), Bhubaneswar Mancheswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar PAN/GIR No.ADQPS 3243 J (Appellant) .. ( Respondent)

Assessee by : Shri S.K.Agarwalla, AR Revenue by : Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR

Date of Hearing : 26/07/ 2017 Date of Pronouncement : 28 /07/ 2017

O R D E R Per N.S.Saini, AM These are cross appeals filed by the Revenue and the assessee

against the order of CIT(A)-I, Bhubaneswar, dated 23.9.2014, for the

assessment year 2008-09.

2.

Ground No.1 in Revenue’s appeal reads as under:

2 ITA No. 468/CT K/ 2014 ITA No. 483/CT K/ 2014 Asse ssment Year :20 08- 09 “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) is not justified in allowing exemption u/s.54F of the Act to the assessee without considering that the assessee did not fulfil all the conditions for claiming such exemption. 3. Ground No.1 in assessee’s appeal reads as under:

“1. That, the Ld. Authorities below are wrong in interpreting the provisions of section 54F of the Act and wrong in holding the meaning assigning to word "a house" as "one house" and therefore the disallowance of exemption of capital gain u/s 54F is liable to be deleted.

4.

Ground No.1 of the appeal of the Revenue’s appeal and Ground No.1

of the assessee’s appeal are interconnected, therefore, they are being

disposed of together for the sake of convenience.

5.

The brief facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer observed

that the assessee had purchased Plot No.88/1189, at Pokhariput,

Bhubaneswar during April, 1988 and done some improvement on the plot

for construction of his own house. The Assessing Officer also observed that

the assessee executed an agreement dated 4.1.2008 with builder, M/s. S.B.

Realcon (P) Ltd., Bhubaneswar for construction of flats on the plot and in

exchange of the land, the assessee will get 28% of the built-up area.

Accordingly, the builder M/s. S.B.Realcon (P) Ltd., Bhubaneswar

constructed the building in the land and delivered 4 flats bearing Nos.101,

103, 104 & 304 to the assessee towards his share of 28% of the constructed

area. The assessee filed return u/s.148 of the Act, showing long term

capital gains amounting to Rs.60,18,026/- as exempt u/s.54F of the Act.

3 ITA No. 468/CT K/ 2014 ITA No. 483/CT K/ 2014 Asse ssment Year :20 08- 09 According to the Assessing Officer, out of four flats delivered to the

assessee by the builder, the Flat No.103 was rented out, Flat No.s101 &

104 were occupied by the assessee and Flat No.304 was vacant at the

relevant time. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has

acquired/purchased 4 independent residential flats within a period of two

years from the date of transfer of original capital assets for which the

assessee is not entitled to claim exemption u/s.54F of the Act. Accordingly,

he denied the claim of exemption u/s.54F of the Act to the assessee in

respect of all flats acquired by the assessee in exchange of land

6.

On appeal, the CIT(A) observed that in view of the decision of ITAT

Mumbai Special Bench in the case of ITO vs. Sushila M Jhaveri, 107 ITD

327(Mum)(SB), the assessee is entitled to one residential unit as per

preference and, accordingly, directed the Assessing Officer to allow

exemption u/s.54F of the Act in respect of one Flat bearing No.101 for

which assessee has given preference.

7.

Before us, ld A.R. of the assessee relied on the decision of Hon’ble

Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Smt. K.G.Rukminiamma, 331

ITR 211 (Kar), wherein, it was held that expression “a residential house”

used in Section 54 should be understood in a sense that the building should

be of residential nature and “a” should not be understood to indicate a

singular number, assessee was entitled to claim exemption under section

54 in respect of four residential flats acquired by her.

4 ITA No. 468/CT K/ 2014 ITA No. 483/CT K/ 2014 Asse ssment Year :20 08- 09 8. Further, he relied on the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the

case of CIT vs. V.R.Karpagam, 373 ITR 127(Mad), wherein, it was held

prior to amendment of section 54F by Finance No.(2) Act, 2014 w.e.f.

1.4.2015, with regard to word “a” a residential house would include multiple

flats/residential units, thus where under the development agreement

assessee was entitled to receive certain built-up area, which got translated

into five flats, exemption u/s.54F in respect of all five flats in a multi-storey

construction would be available.

9.

He further relied on the decision of Hon’ble A.P. High Court in the

case of CIT vs. Sayed Ali Adil, 352 ITR418(AP), wherein, it was held that

deduction under section 54 of the Act is allowable with respect to residential

house consisting of several independent units also..

10.

On the other hand, ld D.R. relied on the order of the Assessing Officer.

11.

We have heard the rival submissions, perused the orders of lower

authorities and materials available on record. In the instant case, the

assessee entered into an agreement with M/s. S.B.Realcon Pvt Ltd.,

Bhubaneswar for construction and sale of flats on his land situated at Plot

No.88/1189, Pokhariput, Old Town, Bhubaneswar during the financial year

2007-08. Thus, there was a deemed transfer of land within the meaning

of section 2(47) of the I.T.Act, read with section 53A of the Transfer of

Property Act during the financial year 2007-08 relevant to assessment year

2008-09. The assessee declared full value of consideration of capital asset

5 ITA No. 468/CT K/ 2014 ITA No. 483/CT K/ 2014 Asse ssment Year :20 08- 09 of Rs.70,89,600/- and deducted therefrom indexed cost of acquisition of

capital asset of Rs.2,73,003/-, Rs.6,78,571/- towards indexed cost of

improvement and Rs.1,20,000/- towards expenses on transfer of capital

asset. Accordingly, the net long term capital gain was arrived at

Rs.60,18,026/-, which was fully claimed as exempt under section 54F of

the Act. From the letter dated 21.4.2012 of the builder, it is noted by the

Assessing Officer that the builder had handed over four flats bearing

No.101,103104 and 304 to the assessee towards his share consisting of

1,826 sq.ft, 1149 sq.ft, 1455 sq.ft, and 1455 sq.ft super built up area (1306

sq.ft, 885 sq.ft. 1120 sq.ft and 1120 sq.ft) plinth area respectively. The

Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has calculated the cost of four

flats by applying Rs.1600/- per sq.ft and arrived at the cost of the

assessee’s share as under:

Flat Type Plinth Super built up Cost of the area(sq.ft) No. area(sq.ft) flat(Rs.) 103 2BR 885 1149 25,65,000/- 101 3BR 1306 1826 36,00,000/- 104 3BR 1120 1455 32,00,000/- 304 3BR 1120 1455 32,00,000/- 1,25,65,000/-

12.

The Assessing Officer further observed that the assessee was allotted

four flats as his share which is not one residential unit but four different

independent units. According to the provisions of section 54F of the Act,

the assessee is not entitled to exemption u/s.54F of the Act because he has

acquired/purchased four independent residential units within a period of

6 ITA No. 468/CT K/ 2014 ITA No. 483/CT K/ 2014 Asse ssment Year :20 08- 09 two years from the date of transfer of the original capital asset and

therefore, he concluded that the assessee is owner of more than one

residential flat and hence, the claim of exemption u/s.54F of the Act is not

allowed.

13.

On appeal, the CIT(A) held that the assessee was entitled to

exemption u/s.54F of the Act for one residential unit as per his preference.

The assessee has asked for exemption of capital gains in respect of flat

No.101 u/s.54F of the Act. Therefore, he directed the Assessing Officer to

allow exemption u/s.54F of the Act in respect of one flat No.101.

14.

We find that the assessment year under appeal is Assessment year

2008-09. According to the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the

case of Smt. K.G.Rukminiamm (supra), wherein, the assessment year

involved is 2004-05, the Hon’ble Court has held that the expression “a

residential house” used in Section 54 should be understood in a sense that

the building should be of residential nature and “a” should not be

understood to indicate a singular number. Still further, the Hon’ble Madras

High Court in the case of V.R.Karpagam (supra), wherein, the assessment

year involved is 2007-08 has held that prior to amendment of section 54F

by Finance No.(2) Act, 2014 w.e.f. 1.4.2015, with regard to word “a” a

residential house would include multiple flats/residential units, thus where

under the development agreement assessee was entitled to receive certain

built-up area, which got translated into five flats, exemption u/s.54F in

respect of all five flats in a multi-storey construction would be available. To

7 ITA No. 468/CT K/ 2014 ITA No. 483/CT K/ 2014 Asse ssment Year :20 08- 09 the same effect is the decision of Honble A.P. High Court in the case of CIT

vs. Sayed Ali Adil,(supra).

15.

Respectfully following the above quoted decisions of various Hon’ble

High Courts, we hold that the assessee is entitled to deduction in respect

of all four flats received by him from the builder under a development

agreement entered into by the assessee with the builder. Therefore, we

set aside the orders of lower authorities and allow the ground of appeal of

the assessee and reject the ground of appeal of the revenue.

16.

Ground No.2 of revenue’s appeal reads as under: 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) is not justified in reducing the market price of flats by 25% of the same determined by the AO for the purpose of calculating the long term capital gain.” 17. Ground No.2 of assessee’s appeal reads as under:

2.

That, the Ld. Income Tax Officer legally not correct in not allowing the exemption of capital gain of' 1,19,00,411 u/s 54F and the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals-I), Bhubaneswar has committed an error of law in restricting the disallowance of exemption to the extent of' of" 60,59,161 and therefore the total long term capital gain are liable to be allowed as exemption u/s 54F of the Act.”

18.

Ground No.2 of the revenue’s appeal and Ground No.2 of the

assessee’s appeal is interconnected and, therefore, they are being disposed

of together as under:

19.

In view of our decision in Ground No.1 of the Assessee’s appeal and

Ground No.1 of Revenue’s appeal , this ground of appeal of the assessee

8 ITA No. 468/CT K/ 2014 ITA No. 483/CT K/ 2014 Asse ssment Year :20 08- 09 and revenue has become only academic in nature, hence, infructuous and

dismissed.

20.

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the appeal

filed by the assessee is partly allowed.

Order pronounced on 28 /07/2017 . Sd/- sd/- (Pavan Kumar Gadale) (N.S Saini) JUDICIALMEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Cuttack; Dated 28 /07/2017 B.K.Parida, SPS

Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant : /Revenue: Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2), Bhubaneswar 2. The Respondent/Assessee: Gaya Santara, Plot No.63/A, Sector-A, Zone-D, Mancheswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar 3. The CIT(A)-1, Bhubaneswar 4. Pr.CIT-1, Bhubaneswar 5. DR, ITAT, Cuttack BY ORDER, 6. Guard file. //True Copy//

SR.PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, Cuttack

More judgments on Section 54F

All 2,628 judgments and leading authorities on Section 54F →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →