2016 (5) TMI 64 - AT - Income Tax

Appellate Tribunal allows claim for multiple flats under section 54

Nilesh Pravin Vora And Yatin Pravin Vora (Legal Heirs of Late Pravin Laxmidas Vora) Versus Income-Tax Officer

The Appellate Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to allow the claim for both flats under section 54 of the Income-tax Act, emphasizing that prior to ... Exemption u/s 54F - whether the appellant had purchased two flats in two different buildings and location and only one flat is eligible for exemption under section 54F? - Held that:- The equivalent of 56.25 per cent of land transferred, equivalent to 43.75 per cent. of the built-up area received by the assessee. This built-up area can be translated into five flats. Hence, the transaction in this case was not with regard to the number of flats but with regard to the percentage of the built-up area vis-a-vis the undivided share of land. In this regard the learned authorised representative for the assessee submitted that prior to the amendment to section 54F effective from April 1, 2015 the assessee was entitled for the benefits of more than one flat as discussed above. It is pertinent to mention here that the hon'ble Madras High Court, in the case of CIT v. Smt. V. R. Karpagam [2014 (8) TMI 899 - MADRAS HIGH COURT ] has clearly held that the amendment to provision of section 54F is effective from April 1, 2015, which makes it clear that benefit of section 54F will be applicable to one residential house in India. Prior to the amendment it was clear that a residential house would include multiple residential units. Assessing Officer is directed to allow the claim of the assessee with respect to two flats purchased by the assessee as discussed above. Assessing Officer is directed to allow the claim of the assessee with respect to two flats purchased by the assessee as discussed above. - Decided in favour of assessee Issues Involved:1. Disallowance of exemption under section 54 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. Interpretation of 'residential house' under section 54.3. Consideration of legal precedents in tax matters.4. Infliction of interest under section 234B of the Income-tax Act, 1961.Issue 1: Disallowance of exemption under section 54 of the Income-tax Act, 1961:The assessee appealed against the disallowance of exemption under section 54 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, amounting to Rs. 21,03,800. The assessee claimed deduction under section 54 for the purchase of two flats, contending that both flats were acquired for residential purposes and should be treated as one unit. However, the Assessing Officer denied the deduction for one flat, leading to the appeal. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) upheld the decision, stating that the two flats were in different locations and societies, thus not qualifying as a single residential unit. The Appellate Tribunal, following legal precedents and the interpretation of section 54F, directed the Assessing Officer to allow the claim for both flats, emphasizing that prior to the amendment effective from April 1, 2015, a residential house could include multiple residential units.Issue 2: Interpretation of 'residential house' under section 54:The dispute revolved around the interpretation of the term 'residential house' under section 54 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee argued that the two flats purchased should be considered a single residential unit as they were acquired for residential purposes and located in the same area. However, the authorities contended that the flats were in different locations and societies, making them ineligible for combined exemption under section 54. The Appellate Tribunal, relying on legal precedents and the Madras High Court decision, emphasized that the amendment to section 54F clarified that the benefit would apply to one residential house in India, but prior to the amendment, a residential house could encompass multiple residential units.Issue 3: Consideration of legal precedents in tax matters:The Appellate Tribunal considered legal precedents, including the judgment of the Madras High Court in CIT v. Smt. V. R. Karpagam, to support its decision regarding the interpretation of section 54 and the eligibility for exemption under the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal highlighted that the legal position prior to the 2015 amendment allowed for the benefits of more than one flat to be claimed as part of a single residential unit, based on the percentage of built-up area received by the assessee. The Tribunal's decision aligned with the legal principles established in previous court rulings, ensuring consistency in tax matters.Issue 4: Infliction of interest under section 234B of the Income-tax Act, 1961:The assessee raised a concern regarding the imposition of interest under section 234B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the Assessing Officer. However, the judgment primarily focused on the disallowance of exemption under section 54 and the interpretation of 'residential house' under the Act. The Tribunal's decision to allow the appeal addressed the core issues related to the exemption claim, while the matter of interest under section 234B was not extensively discussed in the judgment.In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal's decision in the case addressed the issues of disallowance of exemption under section 54, the interpretation of 'residential house,' consideration of legal precedents in tax matters, and primarily focused on the eligibility for exemption based on the acquisition of multiple residential units. The Tribunal's ruling provided clarity on the application of tax provisions and aligned with legal interpretations to ensure consistency and fairness in tax assessments.