Appeal allowed directing AO to adopt FMV Rs.5,00,000 per acre and grant s.54F deduction for block capital gains

ITAT allowed the appeal, directing the AO to adopt FMV of Rs.5,00,000 per acre (instead of Rs.3,50,000) for computing block capital gains and granted deduction under s.54F. The Tribunal held that funds withdrawn from a nationalized bank and expended on house construction qualify as investment for s.54F even though not deposited in CGAS or within s.139 timelines, relying on precedent that bona fide investment in construction within the stipulated period meets statutory requirements.

---

---

ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1. Whether the fair market value (FMV) of an immovable property for computing indexed cost of acquisition can be adopted on the basis of enhanced compensation declared by the Government, rather than an earlier declared lower compensation.

2. Whether an assessee who has utilized the sale proceeds of a long-term capital asset for construction of a residential house on a site already owned by the assessee, and who did not deposit unutilized sale proceeds in a Capital Gains Account Scheme (CGAS) before the due date of return, is entitled to exemption under section 54F.

3. Whether investments in construction made after withdrawing funds from a bank account (where sale proceeds were deposited) but not specifically shown as deposited into CGAS satisfy the requirement of section 54F(4) where the construction/purchase occurs within the statutory time limits.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS - ISSUE 1: FMV BASED ON ENHANCED COMPENSATION

Legal framework: Determination of cost of acquisition for long-term capital gains requires consideration of fair market value (FMV) where relevant; AO may refer to government compensation as indicia of market value.

Precedent treatment: No separate precedent cited by the Tribunal on valuation methodology; Tribunal relied on evidence of enhancement in compensation which the AO had not considered.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal observed that the AO used an earlier compensation rate (Rs. 3,50,000 per acre) to fix FMV but did not consider an enhanced compensation of Rs. 5,00,000 per acre that had been determined subsequently. In absence of contrary material, the Tribunal held the enhanced compensation is a valid indicator of FMV and directed the AO to adopt FMV at Rs. 5,00,000 per acre for computing indexed cost.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - FMV for indexation may be adopted on the basis of subsequently enhanced government compensation when AO has failed to consider such enhancement and it is supported by record.

Conclusion: Ground relating to FMV is allowed; AO directed to adopt enhanced compensation-based FMV of Rs. 5 lakhs per acre for computation of indexed cost of acquisition.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS - ISSUE 2: ELIGIBILITY FOR EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54F WHEN CONSTRUCTION IS ON A SITE ALREADY OWNED

Legal framework: Section 54F(1) provides that capital gain from transfer of certain long-term capital assets (other than a residential house) shall not be charged if the assessee, within specified periods, purchases or constructs a residential house; proviso bars claim where assessee owns more than one residential house (other than the new asset) or purchases/constructs another residential house within prescribed periods. Section 54F(4) prescribes deposit into CGAS where sale consideration is not utilized for purchase or construction before filing the return.

Precedent treatment: The Tribunal relied on the jurisdictional High Court decision which held that investment in construction on a site already owned by the assessee is permissible for claiming exemption under section 54F and that section 54F(4) does not apply where the assessee actually invests the sale proceeds in construction within the statutory period.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal followed the High Court holding that (a) there is no statutory requirement that the assessee must purchase a site on which construction is undertaken; construction on an already-owned site within the prescribed periods qualifies; and (b) section 54F(4) is attracted only where sale consideration is not utilized for purchase or construction within the stipulated period - if the proceeds are actually invested in construction within the period, non-deposit in CGAS is immaterial.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - (i) Exemption under section 54F is available where the assessee constructs a residential house on a site already owned, provided construction is within the statutory time limits; (ii) Section 54F(4) does not defeat the exemption where actual utilization of sale proceeds for construction occurs within the statutory period even if the CGAS deposit requirement was not complied with.

Conclusion: Deduction under section 54F was allowed by the Tribunal, following the High Court authority, because the assessee had incurred construction expenditure within the permissible period and the proceeds had been utilized for construction despite non-deposit into CGAS.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS - ISSUE 3: FACTUAL SUFFICIENCY OF BANK DEPOSITS, WITHDRAWALS AND PAYMENTS AS PROOF OF UTILISATION

Legal framework: Section 54F(4) requires deposit into a notified CGAS for unutilized capital gains before filing the return; alternatively, actual utilization of proceeds for purchase/ construction within time limits suffices for exemption.

Precedent treatment: The Tribunal applied the High Court reasoning that actual investment in construction/purchase within prescribed timelines negates applicability of section 54F(4) and obviates a strict technical requirement to have initially deposited funds in CGAS.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal noted that sale consideration was received by cheque and deposited in a nationalized bank account, and that the assessee withdrew funds and made payments (cheques and cash) for construction, supported by documentary submissions. Although the AO did not comment on those documents, the Tribunal accepted that the proceeds were utilized for construction and that the assessee had been allowed relief under section 54B for purchase of agricultural land. The Tribunal also considered the assessee's personal circumstances (illiteracy, use of thumb impression) as context for non-compliance with CGAS formalities but based its conclusion primarily on the material showing utilization.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Bank deposit of sale proceeds followed by withdrawals and payments for construction, together with supporting documents, can establish utilization of capital gains for purposes of section 54F even where funds were not placed in CGAS prior to filing; such utilization within statutory time limits satisfies section 54F(1) and precludes application of section 54F(4).

Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the exemption under section 54F on the facts: sale proceeds were deposited in bank, monies were withdrawn and expended on construction within the statutory timeframe, and documentary proof of payments was on record; non-deposit into CGAS did not defeat the claim.

ADDITIONAL OBSERVATIONS

1. The Tribunal dismissed as not pressed any legal grounds raised by the assessee but not argued, confining its decision to the FMV and section 54F issues actually argued and decided.

2. The Tribunal directed the assessing officer to adopt the enhanced FMV for computation, and, following judicial precedent, allowed the section 54F deduction - resulting in partial allowance of the appeal.

FINAL CONCLUSIONS

1. The enhanced government compensation can be adopted as FMV for indexation where the AO failed to consider it and it is supported by the record (allowed).

2. Where sale proceeds are actually invested in construction of a residential house within the periods prescribed by section 54F(1), exemption under section 54F is available even if the unutilized sale proceeds were not deposited in a CGAS before filing the return; section 54F(4) applies only where sale consideration is not so utilized (allowed).

---