2022 (3) TMI 1655 - AT - Income Tax

Assessee awarded s.54F exemption for reinvested 2015 capital gains where jointly owned land funded house construction and completion

Smt. S.M. Shoba Verus The Income Tax Officer, Ward 7 (2) (1), Bangalore

ITAT, Bangalore allowed the assessee's claim for exemption under s.54F. The tribunal found the assessee owned the land (held jointly with spouse) and ... Disallowance of claim u/s. 54F - land in which the investment was made is jointly held by assessee and her husband and the total cost of construction was incurred by assessee alone - DR submitted that assessee has claimed u/s. 54F toward purchase of land 4 years prior to sale of original asset along with cost of construction of residential house - HELD THAT:- In the present facts of the case, there is no dispute that assessee is the owner of the property, in respect of which the deduction is claimed. The assessee started construction on the land owned by the assessee and he husband in the year 2015. The original asset was sold in which assessee had 1/3rd share in the financial year relevant to assessment year under consideration i.e., August 2015. The passport to derive benefit u/s 54F(1) is investment in construction of property within the period required u/s 54F(1) or to invest in residential property within the stipulated time for enabling deduction u/s 54F of the Act. In decision of CIT vs. Sambandam Udaykumar [2012 (3) TMI 80 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] took the view that, under provisions of section 54F of the Act, the condition preceded is that, capital gains realised from sale of capital asset should have been parted by assessee and invested or constructed a residential house, as the case may be. Hon’ble court also observed that, the essence of the purpose of section 54F, is whether, the assessee who received the capital gain has invested in a house. Once it is demonstrated that the consideration received on transfer of capital asset has been invested in or construction of residential house, even though the construction is not complete in all respect as required under law, assessee cannot be denied benefit under section 54F. There is no particular stage of completion of construction, that is contemplated. Ld. AR submitted that, the construction was later on completed and the sale deed was registered in favour of assessee on 05/07/2019 in respect of transfer of ownership of residential property. There is nothing placed by revenue on record to demonstrate any other violation in support of their arguments. In present facts we are of the view that assessee has substantially fulfilled all necessary conditions to be entitled for liberal interpretation of sec. 54F. Decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of M/s Dilip Kumar [2018 (7) TMI 1826 - SUPREME COURT (LB)] needs to be applied after analysing the facts in each case. In our opinion, in present facts decision by Hon’ble Supreme Court support the case of assessee. Thus, we hold that assessee is eligible for exemption u/s 54F. Decided in favour of assessee. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether deduction under section 54F is available where the assessee had acquired the land (part of the new residential asset) prior to the date of transfer of the original asset which generated the capital gain. 2. Whether the cost of land forming part of the new residential asset is to be included in computing the amount eligible for exemption under section 54F. 3. Whether an assessee who is a joint owner of the new residential asset but who alone incurs the cost of construction can claim exemption under section 54F in respect of amounts so invested. 4. The applicable approach to interpretation of exemption provisions (strict vs. liberal) and the effect of prior apex court authority directing strict interpretation of exemption clauses. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 - Availability of section 54F where land was acquired before transfer of original asset Legal framework: Section 54F provides exemption from capital gains where the assessee purchases a residential house within one year before or two years after the date of transfer of the asset, or constructs a residential house within three years after the date of transfer, and the cost of such residential house is set off against the capital gain. Precedent treatment: Authorities below relied on a binding appellate authority that emphasises strict interpretation of exemption clauses. Contrasting High Court decisions have held that prior purchase or construction can qualify provided statutory conditions are substantially satisfied. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court examined the statutory text and relevant authorities and concluded that the section contemplates acquisition either before or after the transfer (one year prior permitted). More importantly, the Tribunal emphasised the purpose of section 54F - that the capital gain must be invested in a residential house - and recognised that construction may commence or land may be acquired prior to sale so long as the overall statutory conditions (timelines and investment of capital gain amounts) are substantially complied with. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - acquisition of land prior to transfer does not, per se, disentitle an assessee to exemption under section 54F where the statutory conditions are otherwise met and the capital gain is applied to the cost of the new house. Obiter - observations on the permissibility of construction commencement before transfer as a general practice. Conclusion: The Tribunal held that pre-acquisition of the land in 2011 did not automatically disqualify the assessee from claiming exemption where construction was carried out within the prescribed period and capital gains were invested. Issue 2 - Inclusion of cost of land in computing the cost of the new residential house for section 54F Legal framework: Section 54F requires that the cost of the residential house purchased or constructed be compared with the amount of capital gain for determining the exemption. The statutory language refers to the 'cost of the residential house' without excluding the cost of land. Precedent treatment: Several High Court decisions have interpreted the 'cost of the residential house' to include land cost, materials, labour and other costs relatable to acquisition/construction. Apex authority emphasises strict applicability of exemption clauses but recognises that, once applicability is established, a liberal construction may follow on computation. Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal applied plain textual interpretation and the line of authority that treats the cost of land as part of the cost of the residential house. It reasoned that Congress intended the cost of the new house to include land and all costs relatable to construction or acquisition, and that capital gains may be set off against that composite cost. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - cost of land forms part of the cost of the new residential house for the purposes of section 54F computation when the statutory conditions are satisfied. Obiter - commentary on stages of construction and completion not being determinative if substantial investment is made. Conclusion: The cost of land is includible in computing the cost of the new residential house and relevant for determining the exemption under section 54F. Issue 3 - Claiming exemption by a co-owner who alone expended the construction cost Legal framework: Section 54F is available to an assessee who invests the capital gain in the acquisition or construction of a residential house. The provision looks to the investment of capital gains by the assessee, not strictly to title registration alone. Precedent treatment: High Court authorities have held that where an assessee, though a co-owner, demonstrates that the consideration flowing from her capital gain was invested in the new asset, exemption may be allowed in view of substantial compliance with statutory conditions. Revenue authorities have taken an opposite view where co-ownership and source of funds were not reconciled to their satisfaction. Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal examined documentary evidence showing that the assessee's capital gain share was spent on construction. It relied on the principle that section 54F aims to neutralise tax where capital gains are devoted to purchase/construction of a house by the assessee. Mere joint title does not negate entitlement if it is demonstrated that the assessee invested the relevant funds and the statutory temporal conditions are satisfied. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - an assessee who is a joint owner may claim exemption under section 54F proportionate to the investment of her capital gain in the new residential asset, provided the statutory conditions are substantially complied with. Obiter - observations distinguishing cases where no tracing of funds or no substantial compliance is shown. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed exemption in favour of the assessee in respect of the amount she had invested in construction, notwithstanding joint ownership of the land, up to the quantified limit accepted by the Tribunal. Issue 4 - Approach to interpreting exemption provisions: strict applicability and liberal construction thereafter Legal framework: Exemption provisions in taxing statutes require the assessee to prove applicability. Judicial authorities have articulated a two-stage approach: strict interpretation at the stage of applicability, and liberal construction in computing benefits once applicability is established. Precedent treatment: Apex court authority requires that exemption clauses be interpreted strictly with burden on the assessee, but allows that once applicability hurdles are overcome, ambiguities on relief calculation may be resolved liberally in favour of the assessee. High Court precedents relied upon by the assessee adopt a broadly liberal approach where conditions are substantially met. Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal applied the two-stage approach: it examined whether the assessee met the conditions of section 54F (timelines, investment of capital gain) and found substantial compliance. Applying the cited approach, once applicability was satisfied, the Tribunal construed computation-related aspects (inclusion of land cost, treatment of joint ownership where actual investment is traced) liberally to effectuate the object of the provision. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - where an assessee proves substantial compliance with conditions for an exemption, computation aspects may be liberally construed to give effect to the relief; however, initial applicability is to be strictly assessed. Obiter - evaluative comments on reconciling different lines of authority. Conclusion: The Tribunal held that after finding requisite conditions substantially fulfilled, the exemption should be allowed on liberal construction of computation aspects while remaining consistent with the requirement that the assessee prove entitlement. Final disposition and quantification Interpretation and reasoning: Applying the foregoing legal analysis and precedential approach to the facts (investment of the assessee's share of capital gain into construction within statutory time, ownership status, and documentary evidence), the Tribunal held that the assessee was eligible for exemption under section 54F. Conclusion: The appeal was allowed in part and exemption under section 54F was granted to the assessee to the extent quantified by the Tribunal (specified sum allowed). The Tribunal's holding is a ratio that pre-acquisition of land and joint ownership do not automatically negate section 54F relief where statutory conditions and the investment of capital gains are substantially demonstrated.