Guarantor's property transfer to financial institution after loan default creates taxable capital gains under sections 2(47), 45, 48

The ITAT Cuttack held that transfer of immovable properties by a guarantor to a financial institution constitutes taxable capital gains under sections 2(47), 45, and 48 of the Income Tax Act. The assessee-guarantor's properties were sold to the financial institution following loan defaults by companies she had guaranteed. Despite claims of receiving no consideration, the tribunal found that the guarantor obtained valuable rights by stepping into the creditor's position, especially given her directorship and substantial shareholding in the defaulting companies. The sale deed evidenced a plain transfer for consideration, making capital gains computable and taxable.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the sale of immovable property should be considered as income from capital gains.
2. Misapplication of the ratio decidendi of CIT v. Attilli N. Rao and T.S. Hajee Moosa & Co Vs. ACIT by CIT (Appeals).

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the sale of immovable property should be considered as income from capital gains:

The assessee, a director in six companies, mortgaged her immovable properties to secure loans for these companies from SREI Equipment Finance Ltd. Due to the companies' failure to repay the loans, SREI took over the mortgaged properties. The primary issue is whether the takeover of these properties results in capital gains taxable in the hands of the assessee.

The assessee argued that since she did not receive any consideration from the sale, no capital gains should be levied. According to Section 48 of the Income Tax Act, capital gains are computed based on the consideration received or accrued. The assessee contended that the sale consideration of Rs. 1,89,13,000/- was neither received by her nor set off against the loans, thus failing the requirement under Section 48.

The Tribunal noted that the sale deed executed by SREI Equipment Finance Ltd. mentioned the consideration and the transfer of possession. The Tribunal emphasized that the sale deed did not indicate enforcement of the guarantee clause. The property was sold as a free asset, and the sale deed mentioned that the consideration was received in full satisfaction. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the sale of the immovable property falls under the definition of "transfer" under Section 2(47) of the Act, making it liable for capital gains tax as per Sections 45 and 48.

The Tribunal also observed that the assessee, being a director and substantial shareholder in the companies, would have received benefits indirectly. When the immovable properties were taken over by the financial institution, the assessee stepped into the shoes of the financial institution as a creditor to the companies. This right to recover the loan amount from the companies constitutes a form of consideration.

2. Misapplication of the ratio decidendi of CIT v. Attilli N. Rao and T.S. Hajee Moosa & Co Vs. ACIT by CIT (Appeals):

The CIT (Appeals) relied on the judgments in CIT v. Attilli N. Rao and T.S. Hajee Moosa & Co Vs. ACIT to support the taxation of capital gains. However, the assessee argued that these cases were factually different from her case.

In CIT v. Attilli N. Rao, the Supreme Court held that the entire sale consideration realized from the auction of the property, including the amount used to settle the kist dues, should be considered for capital gains. The Tribunal noted that in this case, the property was sold, and the consideration was received and then applied to settle the dues. This scenario differs from the assessee's case, where the property was transferred without any monetary transaction.

In T.S. Hajee Moosa & Co Vs. ACIT, the ITAT Chennai held that the assessee, who had mortgaged property as security for loans taken by group concerns, was liable for capital gains tax as the sale proceeds were used to settle the loans. The Tribunal observed that in this case, the consideration was realized and then applied to settle the debts, unlike the assessee's case where no consideration was received or accrued.

The Tribunal concluded that the factual matrix of the cited cases did not apply to the assessee's case. The assessee's income was diverted at source without any consideration received or accrued, falling under the principle of "Diversion of Income by Overriding Title."

Conclusion:

The Tribunal upheld the order of the Assessing Officer and CIT (Appeals), confirming the levy of capital gains tax on the sale of the immovable properties. The appeal of the assessee was dismissed. The Tribunal emphasized that the sale deed executed indicated a plain and simple sale, and the conditions under Sections 2(47), 45, and 48 of the Income Tax Act were met, making the transaction liable for capital gains tax.

---