Assessee granted Section 54 exemption after purchasing replacement property within mandatory two-year period despite initial ownership issues.

ITAT Mumbai allowed the appeal regarding exemption under Section 54. The assessee sold flats through agreements dated 9/1/2020 and purchased replacement property through agreement dated 18/03/2021, with consideration discharged by 12/03/2021. Despite property initially being in husband's name, the tribunal found the assessee was the real economic owner who executed transactions and received consideration in her account. The purchase was completed within the mandatory two-year period under Section 54. Lower authorities erred in denying exemption by focusing only on fund rotation without considering the complete transaction timeline and proper discharge of consideration within stipulated timeframe.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered by the Tribunal in this appeal are:

(a) Whether the appellant (assessee) was the real/economic/deemed owner of the residential property (Flat Nos. 402A/402B, Glen Classic, Powai) sold by her, or whether the ownership and economic interest belonged to her husband, thereby affecting the claim of exemption under Section 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act).

(b) Whether the exemption under Section 54 of the Act can be denied on the ground that the new residential property was purchased from the husband, who was the deemed owner of the original property, invoking the clubbing provisions under Section 64(1)(iv) of the Act.

(c) Whether the exemption under Section 54 can be disallowed on the ground that the unutilized capital gains were not deposited in the Capital Gains Account Scheme (CGAS) before filing the return of income, as required under Section 54(2) of the Act.

(d) Whether the exemption under Section 54 should be denied on the basis that the appellant adopted a colourable device or engaged in rotation of funds to evade tax.

(e) Whether the timing and manner of payment for the new property, including the sequence of transactions involving the appellant, her husband, and a related company, affect the entitlement to exemption under Section 54.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue (a): Ownership and Real/Economic Deemed Ownership of the Property Sold

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The concept of real/economic ownership is pivotal in determining the person liable to tax capital gains on sale of property. The Income Tax Act recognizes deemed ownership under certain circumstances, including clubbing provisions under Section 64(1)(iv) relating to assets transferred without adequate consideration among family members.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Assessing Officer (AO) initially held that the appellant and her husband jointly purchased the flats in 2002 but failed to prove that the appellant made any payment towards the purchase consideration. Consequently, the AO concluded that the husband was the real/economic owner. Further, since the husband owned the new property purchased by the appellant, the sale transaction was considered a sale to oneself, rendering the sale agreement void and the exemption under Section 54 inapplicable.

The AO also noted that the husband gifted his 50% share to the appellant in 2017, but held that under Section 64(1)(iv), the husband remained the deemed owner of that share.

The CIT(A) upheld the AO's findings, emphasizing lack of evidence of payment by the appellant and the rotation of funds indicating no real transfer of consideration.

However, the Tribunal noted that the capital gains were assessed fully in the hands of the appellant, and the sale agreement was executed by her individually. The appellant had also offered rental income from the property post-gift deed in her return. The Tribunal held that once the capital gains were assessed in the appellant's hands, denying exemption on the ground of ownership would be inconsistent.

Key Evidence and Findings: The appellant's failure to prove payment at the time of original purchase was counterbalanced by the registered gift deed dated 1-4-2017 transferring the husband's share to her. The sale agreement and receipt of sale consideration in her bank account further supported her ownership at the time of sale.

Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the principle that ownership and income must be consistent and that once capital gains were assessed in the appellant's hands, she must be recognized as the owner for exemption purposes.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue argued that the husband was the deemed owner and the sale was a transaction with oneself, invalidating the exemption. The appellant countered with the gift deed and full assessment of capital gains in her hands. The Tribunal sided with the appellant.

Conclusion: The appellant was the real and economic owner of the property at the time of sale, entitling her to claim exemption under Section 54.

Issue (b): Applicability of Section 64(1)(iv) Clubbing Provisions on Gifted Share

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 64(1)(iv) provides for clubbing of income arising from assets transferred without consideration to spouse or other specified relatives. However, the income must first be chargeable to tax to be clubbed. The definition of income under Section 2(24) and chargeability under Section 45 are subject to exemptions under Section 54.

Relevant precedents cited by the appellant include CIT vs. Ajit Thomas (Madras HC), Hemant Shah vs. ACIT (Mumbai ITAT), and ACIT vs. Madan Lal Bassi (Chandigarh ITAT), where it was held that if capital gains are exempt under Section 54, they do not constitute income for clubbing purposes.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The AO disallowed exemption on 50% of the capital gains on the ground that the husband was the deemed owner of that share under Section 64(1)(iv). The Tribunal examined the interplay of Sections 45, 54, and 64(1)(iv), concluding that exempt capital gains do not form part of income and thus cannot be clubbed.

Key Evidence and Findings: The registered gift deed and subsequent assessment of capital gains in appellant's hands supported the appellant's position.

Application of Law to Facts: Since the exemption under Section 54 applies before chargeability under Section 45, the capital gains exempted do not constitute income for clubbing under Section 64(1)(iv).

Treatment of Competing Arguments: Revenue's reliance on deemed ownership and clubbing provisions was rejected on the basis of the above legal framework.

Conclusion: The clubbing provisions under Section 64(1)(iv) do not apply to exempt capital gains under Section 54, and thus the exemption cannot be denied on this ground.

Issue (c): Compliance with Capital Gains Account Scheme (CGAS) Requirements under Section 54(2)

Relevant Legal Framework: Section 54(2) mandates that if the capital gains are not fully invested in the new residential property before filing the return, the unutilized amount must be deposited in CGAS to claim exemption.

During the relevant assessment year, the time limit for investment was extended to 31-3-2021 by the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (TOLA).

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The AO and CIT(A) disallowed exemption on the ground that the appellant did not deposit unutilized capital gains in CGAS before filing the return. The appellant submitted that the entire investment was made before the extended deadline of 31-3-2021.

The Tribunal accepted the appellant's submission, noting that the payment for the new property was made by 12-3-2021, within the extended timeline, and that the AO and CIT(A) failed to consider this extension.

Key Evidence and Findings: Documentary evidence of payment dates and bank statements showing discharge of purchase consideration before 31-3-2021.

Application of Law to Facts: The extension of the time limit under TOLA was applicable, and the appellant complied with the requirement of Section 54(2).

Treatment of Competing Arguments: Revenue's argument based on non-compliance was rejected due to the statutory extension and appellant's compliance.

Conclusion: The appellant complied with Section 54(2) requirements, and exemption cannot be denied on this ground.

Issue (d): Allegation of Colourable Device and Rotation of Funds to Evade Tax

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The Supreme Court in McDowell & Co. Ltd. vs. Commercial Tax Officer held that tax planning is legitimate if within the framework of law, but colourable devices to evade tax are impermissible.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The AO alleged that the appellant used a colourable device by rotating funds through her, her husband, and a related company (M/s Altan Engineering Pvt Ltd) without actual transfer of consideration, merely changing the title of the property.

The CIT(A) upheld this view, relying on the Supreme Court's ruling to disallow the exemption.

The appellant submitted detailed evidence of the sequence of transactions, fixed deposits, and timing of payments, explaining that funds were parked temporarily due to pending tax withholding certificate and were fully paid before the extended deadline.

The Tribunal found that the AO focused only on the transactions on 12-3-2021 without considering earlier transactions where funds were parked in fixed deposits and with the related company, and the subsequent release of funds for payment.

Key Evidence and Findings: Bank statements, fixed deposit receipts, payment schedules, and timing of withholding tax certificate issuance.

Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal held that the appellant's actions did not amount to a colourable device but were legitimate financial arrangements pending tax formalities.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: Revenue's allegation of tax evasion was rejected based on the appellant's credible explanation and documentary evidence.

Conclusion: No colourable device was employed; the exemption under Section 54 cannot be denied on this ground.

Issue (e): Timing and Manner of Payment for New Property

Relevant Legal Framework: Section 54 requires investment in new residential property within two years of transfer of original asset to claim exemption.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The appellant purchased the new property from her husband by registered agreement dated 18-3-2021 and discharged the entire consideration by 12-3-2021, within the extended timeline.

The Tribunal observed that the payment was made after the sale of the original property on 9-1-2020 and before filing the return on 24-3-2021.

Key Evidence and Findings: Registered sale agreements, bank statements showing payment, and tax withholding certificates.

Application of Law to Facts: The appellant complied with the timing and payment requirements for claiming exemption under Section 54.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: Revenue's contention that payment was not made timely was rejected based on documentary evidence and statutory extension.

Conclusion: The appellant's purchase and payment for the new property complied with the requirements of Section 54.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

"The capital gains which have been brought to tax relates to the flats that have been sold/ transferred by the assessee vide agreement to sell dated 9/1/2020 and the assessee has thereafter purchased another flat vide agreement to sell dated 18/03/2021 wherein the consideration has been discharged by 12/03/2021, the said purchase is thus within the stipulated time period of two years after the date on which transfer of the original asset took place as prescribed u/s 54, the claim of exemption u/s 54 cannot be denied to the assessee."

"It is clear that no actual consideration was made by the assessee for purchase of new property from her husband, but moved the fund of M/s. Altan Engineering Pvt Ltd/ her husband from one hand to another. This is nothing but the rotation of money just to evade tax. No actual transfer of money, no right to use the property changed, only title of the property has changed. As per Supreme Court Order in McDowell and Company Ltd. Vs Commercial Tax Officer, 154 ITR 148 held that the 'Tax planning may be legitimate provided within the framework of law and the colourable device cannot be a part of the tax planning.'" (Held by AO and CIT(A), reversed by Tribunal)

"Section 64(1)(iv) would fail to operate with respect to something which cannot be regarded as 'income' at the first place. Section 2(24) defines 'Income' which includes the capital gain which is chargeable to tax u/s. 45, Section 45 provides for the chargeability of the capital gains but subject to the provisions of Section 54 etc. (which provide for the exemption). Therefore, the capital gain if exempt u/s. 54 then does not fall within the chargeability provision of Section 45 at all and, therefore, does not fall within the definition of the 'income' at all."

Core principles established include:

• The real/economic ownership for capital gains tax purposes is determined by actual ownership at the time of sale and cannot be contradicted by mere lack of proof of payment at original purchase, especially when a registered gift deed transfers ownership prior to sale.
• Exemption under Section 54 is available even when the new property is purchased from a relative, including spouse, provided the transaction is genuine and consideration is paid within the prescribed time.
• Clubbing provisions under Section 64(1)(iv) do not apply to exempt capital gains under Section 54.
• Temporary parking of funds pending tax formalities does not amount to a colourable device if the entire consideration is paid within the extended time limit.
• Statutory extensions under TOLA Act must be considered in determining compliance with investment timelines under Section 54.

Final determinations on each issue:

• The appellant was the real and economic owner of the property sold and entitled to claim exemption under Section 54.
• The clubbing provisions under Section 64(1)(iv) do not apply to exempt capital gains under Section 54.
• The appellant complied with the requirement of depositing unutilized capital gains in CGAS or investing in new property within the extended timeline.
• The allegation of colourable device and rotation of funds was not substantiated; the exemption cannot be denied on this ground.
• The exemption claimed under Section 54 was rightly allowed by the Tribunal, reversing the disallowance by AO and CIT(A).

---