Assessee granted section 54G deduction for investment in partnership firm after shifting industrial undertaking from urban to rural area

ITAT Rajkot allowed the appeal regarding denial of deduction under section 54G. The assessee shifted industrial undertaking from urban to rural area and invested Rs. 1.22 crores in a partnership firm for construction and machinery purchase. The revenue contended investment was made by the firm, not the assessee. ITAT held that partnership property belongs to partners proportionately, and section 54G doesn't require assets to be acquired in assessee's name. Since the assessee satisfied all conditions including shifting undertaking, transferring plant machinery, and making requisite investment within prescribed timeframe, exemption under section 54G was granted. Addition made by assessing officer was deleted.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of deduction under Section 54G of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Confirmation of interest under Sections 234A, 234B, 234C, and 234D of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
3. Justification and legality of the findings of the CIT(A).

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Disallowance of Deduction under Section 54G:
The primary issue revolves around the disallowance of the deduction under Section 54G amounting to Rs. 88,24,035/- claimed by the assessee on account of shifting an industrial undertaking from an urban area to a rural area. The assessee, an individual, had sold land and building for Rs. 1,22,41,000/- and invested the proceeds in a partnership firm, M/s Om Metal Cast, which subsequently invested in a factory building and plant & machinery in a rural area.

The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed the deduction on the grounds that the investment was made by the partnership firm, not the individual assessee. The CIT(A) upheld this decision, stating that the individual and the partnership firm are distinct entities under the Income Tax Act, and therefore, the conditions of Section 54G were not met.

Upon appeal, the Tribunal noted that the object of Section 54G is to promote the decongestion of urban areas and balanced regional growth. The Tribunal found that the assessee had complied with the essential conditions of Section 54G, namely:
- Shifting the existing undertaking from urban to rural area.
- Transferring and installing the existing plant and machinery in the rural area.
- Making further investments in the new undertaking for expansion.

The Tribunal emphasized that the firm is merely a compendious name for the partners, and the assets of the firm belong to the partners. Citing various judicial precedents, including the Supreme Court's ruling in N. Khadervali Saheb & Anrs. Vs. N. Gudi Sahib, the Tribunal concluded that the individual partners are the real owners of the assets of the partnership firm. Therefore, the investment made by the firm through the funds provided by the partners is eligible for deduction under Section 54G.

The Tribunal also referred to similar cases like Chandra N. Jethwani and CIT vs. Mohanlal Kapur, where it was held that partners are not separate from the partnership firms, and thus, the income of the partner from the firm is treated as business income. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee is entitled to the exemption under Section 54G and deleted the addition made by the AO.

2. Confirmation of Interest under Sections 234A, 234B, 234C, and 234D:
The assessee also contested the confirmation of interest under Sections 234A, 234B, 234C, and 234D of the Income Tax Act. However, the Tribunal's decision primarily focused on the main issue of the disallowance under Section 54G. As the primary issue was resolved in favor of the assessee, the Tribunal implicitly addressed the interest-related issues, which are consequential in nature.

3. Justification and Legality of the Findings of the CIT(A):
The assessee argued that the findings of the CIT(A) were not justified and were bad in law. The Tribunal, after a thorough examination of the facts and relevant case laws, found that the CIT(A) had erred in confirming the AO's disallowance. The Tribunal emphasized that the CIT(A) failed to consider the broader objective of Section 54G and the judicial precedents that support the assessee's claim.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, holding that the assessee is eligible for the deduction under Section 54G of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal deleted the addition made by the AO and implicitly addressed the interest-related issues, thereby providing comprehensive relief to the assessee. The order was pronounced in the open court on 06/08/2024.

---