Capital gains reinvestment in new home despite missing CGAS deposit by s.139(1) deadline; s.54 deduction allowed

The dominant issue was whether deduction under s.54 could be denied for failure to deposit capital gains in the Capital Gains Accounts Scheme by the due date under s.139(1) despite subsequent investment in a new residential house. The Tribunal held that s.54(2) is an enabling/procedural provision meant to park funds until investment, and cannot be strictly construed to defeat the substantive exemption under s.54(1) where bona fide intention and actual investment within the stipulated period are proved; reliance was placed on CBDT Circulars and HC authority treating analogous language in s.54F. Consequently, since the assessee demonstrated purchase of a new residential house within time, the direction to allow s.54 deduction was upheld and the appeal was decided in favour of the assessee.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1) Whether deduction under section 54 could be denied solely because the capital gain was not deposited in the Capital Gains Accounts Scheme before the due date under section 139(1), where the assessee had in fact invested the capital gains in a new residential flat within the permissible period.

2) Whether, on the evidence, the assessee's investment was in one new residential flat (and not two flats), so as to sustain allowance of deduction under section 54 to the extent of proved investment.

3) Whether, while allowing section 54 relief, the eligible deduction was correctly restricted to the quantum of proven qualifying investment and the computation of long-term capital gain was to exclude an unsubstantiated travel expense claim.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Section 54 deduction despite non-deposit in Capital Gains Accounts Scheme before due date under section 139(1)

Legal framework (as discussed by the Court/Tribunal): The Court treated section 54(1) as a substantive provision intended to promote purchase/construction of residential houses, and section 54(2) as an enabling/procedural provision dealing with parking of capital gains in a notified scheme until utilisation. The Court compared the wording of section 54(2) with section 54F(4) (noting them to be almost identical) and applied the reasoning that deposit requirements are triggered where the assessee seeks to retain the cash instead of investing within the stipulated time.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court found, on record, that the assessee had kept sale proceeds in a nationalised bank and subsequently utilised them for purchase of a new flat. The only lapse was non-deposit into the specified capital gains scheme. The Court reasoned that when the assessee's intention to purchase a residential property is demonstrated and the investment is actually made within the stipulated period, the procedural condition of depositing in a particular scheme should not defeat the substantive benefit under section 54(1). The Court accepted that the enabling provision in section 54(2) should not be strictly construed to deny exemption where the capital gains were in fact invested in a new residential house within time.

Conclusion: Deduction under section 54 could not be denied merely because the assessee did not deposit the amount in the Capital Gains Accounts Scheme by the due date under section 139(1), since the capital gains were proved to have been invested in purchase of a new residential flat within the permissible period. The direction to allow section 54 relief was upheld.

Issue 2: Whether investment was in one flat (not two) and sufficiency of evidence

Interpretation and reasoning: The disallowance had relied, inter alia, on an inference that the assessee booked two flats on different floors. The appellate authority, on evidence called for and examined, accepted a correction confirmation from the builder stating that a flat number was wrongly mentioned in a receipt due to oversight, and that the correct flat number was the one claimed by the assessee. The Court noted that supporting documents were filed, including the correction communication, agreement with the builder, and proof of investments. On this evidentiary basis, the Court treated the "two flats" inference as unfounded and accepted that the assessee's investment pertained to the single flat identified by the corrected record.

Conclusion: The Court sustained the factual finding that the assessee had invested in a single new residential flat, and the alleged booking/purchase of two flats did not survive in view of the correction evidence and supporting documentation.

Issue 3: Quantum of eligible section 54 deduction and capital gains computation (travel expense disallowance)

Interpretation and reasoning: The appellate authority found that a claimed travel expense in computing capital gains was unsupported by justification/evidence and therefore could not be allowed in computing long-term capital gain. Separately, while granting section 54 relief, the appellate authority restricted the deduction to the amount of qualifying investment that was evidenced-comprising payments towards the flat and additional supported expenditure accepted as furnishing-related-aggregating to a specified proven figure. The Court found no infirmity in restricting section 54 deduction to the extent of substantiated investment and sustaining recomputation of capital gain after disallowing the unsubstantiated travel expense.

Conclusion: Section 54 deduction was correctly limited to the amount of qualifying investment proved on record, and long-term capital gain was correctly computed without allowing the unsupported travel expense claim. The allowance of deduction to the evidenced extent was affirmed and the revenue's challenge was rejected.

---