Assessee denied section 54F exemption for investing in agricultural land with shed instead of residential house

ITAT Delhi denied exemption u/s 54F to assessee claiming investment in residential house. Revenue's inquiry with photographic evidence established that Rs. 1.84 crore was invested in urban agricultural land with existing structures, not residential property. Sub-Registrar confirmed stamp duty was charged for agricultural land and covered area, with no mention of residential house. Property was used for concrete brick manufacturing unit. Court held that 500 sq mtr shed on agricultural land cannot qualify as residential house for s.54F exemption, which requires genuine residential property investment.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of the transaction as 'capital gains' vs. 'adventure in the nature of trade'.
2. Allowance of cost of improvement and indexation.
3. Eligibility for exemption u/s 54F.
4. Claim of exemption u/s 54B.

Issue 1: Classification of the transaction as 'capital gains' vs. 'adventure in the nature of trade'

The Assessing Officer (AO) classified the transaction of sale of land as an 'adventure in the nature of trade' rather than 'capital gains'. The CIT(A) disagreed, treating the transaction as 'capital gains'. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, citing various judgments including G. Venkataswami Naidu & Co. Vs. CIT and Jankiram Bahadur Ram vs. CIT, which emphasized that holding land for a long period and making improvements for better sale price does not constitute an adventure in the nature of trade.

Issue 2: Allowance of cost of improvement and indexation

The AO disallowed the full cost of improvement claimed by the assessee, stating that the payments were unverifiable and partly made in cash. The CIT(A) allowed the full cost of improvement and indexation, which the Tribunal affirmed, noting that the improvements made were necessary to make the land saleable. The Tribunal also noted that the AO did not make sufficient inquiries to disprove the assessee's claims.

Issue 3: Eligibility for exemption u/s 54F

The AO denied the exemption u/s 54F, arguing that the property purchased was not a residential house but agricultural land with a small structure used for commercial purposes. The CIT(A) allowed the exemption, stating that the land included a residential house. The Tribunal reversed the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing with the AO that the property did not qualify as a residential house based on the evidence, including photographs showing a brick manufacturing unit on the land.

Issue 4: Claim of exemption u/s 54B

The assessee's claim for exemption u/s 54B was initially not allowed by the CIT(A) because it was not filed with the return. The Tribunal referred the matter back to the AO to examine the eligibility for exemption u/s 54B based on the date of purchase of the property.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision on treating the transaction as 'capital gains' and allowing the cost of improvement. However, it reversed the CIT(A)'s decision on the exemption u/s 54F, agreeing with the AO that the property was not a residential house. The matter of exemption u/s 54B was referred back to the AO for further examination.

Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 30/05/2024.

---