2003 (4) TMI 597 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal directs AO to verify claims under Section 54F, matter referred back for investment examination.

Devang S. Desai Versus Deputy Commissioner

The Tribunal allowed the appeals, directing the AO to verify the correctness of the claims under Section 54F. The matter was referred back to the AO to ... - Issues Involved:1. Rejection of claim under Section 54F of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. Computation of undisclosed income under Chapter XIV-B of the Income-tax Act.3. Application of Chapter IV provisions in block assessment.4. Verification of the legitimacy of investments under Section 54F.Detailed Analysis:1. Rejection of claim under Section 54F of the Income-tax Act, 1961:The appellants contended that the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (DCIT) erred in rejecting their claims under Section 54F, amounting to Rs. 63,760, without considering the relevant provisions of the Income-tax Act. They argued that the DCIT should have computed the total income as per Chapter IV, which includes Section 54F, allowing deductions for long-term capital gains invested in residential properties.2. Computation of undisclosed income under Chapter XIV-B of the Income-tax Act:A search under Section 132(1) was conducted, revealing undisclosed shares. The Assessing Officer (AO) argued that the capital gains from these shares, which were not disclosed in the original returns, should be taxed at a flat rate of 60% without allowing deductions under Section 54F. The AO's stance was that the special procedure under Chapter XIV-B for search cases precludes such deductions.3. Application of Chapter IV provisions in block assessment:The appellants argued that the term 'total income' in Section 158BB should be computed in accordance with Chapter IV, which includes Section 54F. They cited various case laws and statutory provisions to support their claim that deductions under Section 54F should be allowed when computing undisclosed income.4. Verification of the legitimacy of investments under Section 54F:The AO did not verify whether the investments claimed under Section 54F were legitimate. The appellants provided evidence of their investments in residential properties and argued that these should be considered for deductions. The Tribunal noted that the AO had not disputed the genuineness of the investments but had only objected to the utilization of undisclosed income for tax benefits.Tribunal's Findings:The Tribunal examined the language of Section 158BB and the amendments made by the Finance Act, 2002. It concluded that the total undisclosed income should be computed in accordance with the provisions of Chapter IV, including Section 54F, unless the deductions are found to be false. The Tribunal noted that the AO had not found the deductions under Section 54F to be false.The Tribunal also considered Section 158BH, which states that all other provisions of the Income-tax Act apply to assessments under Chapter XIV-B unless otherwise provided. This supported the view that deductions under Section 54F should be allowed when computing undisclosed income.Conclusion:The Tribunal allowed the appeals, directing the AO to verify the correctness of the claims under Section 54F. The matter was referred back to the AO to examine the nature of the investments and provide the appellants with an opportunity to furnish necessary details. The appeals were allowed with these directions.