2010 (12) TMI 44 - HC - Income Tax

Supreme Court Limits Capital Gains Tax Exemption to Single Residential Property Under Section 54 of Income Tax Act

SC dismissed the appeal challenging the Tribunal's order regarding capital gains exemption under Section 54 of Income Tax Act. The court held that ... Claimed exemption on capital gains on sale of flat - acquisition of two houses - HELD THAT:- As regards claim for exemption against acquisition of two houses under Section 54 of the Act, the same is not admissible in plain language of statute. In the judgment of Karnataka High Court in D. Ananda Basappa [2008 (10) TMI 99 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT], referred to in the impugned order, exemption against purchase of two flats was allowed having regard to the finding that both the flats could be treated to be one house as both had been combined to make one residential unit. The said judgment, thus, proceeds on a different fact situation. Appeal is dismissed. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal questions considered in the judgment are:(i) Whether the rejection of the assessee's claim for exemption under Section 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, despite fulfillment of all statutory conditions, is legally sustainable.(ii) Whether the authorities' dismissal of the assessee's claim without any material evidence to rebut the claim is sustainable in law.(iii) Whether the authorities erred in ignoring the precedent set by the decision in D. Anand Basapa v. ITO, where exemption under Section 54 was granted for acquisition of two houses out of the proceeds of sale of one residential house.(iv) Whether the impugned orders passed by the authorities below are legally sustainable.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISIssue (i) & (ii): Legality of rejection of exemption claim under Section 54 and absence of rebuttal evidenceThe legal framework revolves around Section 54 of the Income Tax Act, which allows exemption from capital gains tax on sale of a residential house if the capital gains are invested in the purchase or construction of another residential house within the prescribed time. The assessee claimed exemption on capital gains arising from sale of a flat by acquiring two separate residential houses.The Assessing Officer (AO) allowed exemption only against one house and rejected the claim for the second house. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] upheld the assessee's claim relying on a decision of the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in D. Anand Basapa v. ITO, where exemption was granted for acquisition of two houses.However, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) reversed the CIT(A)'s decision, holding that under the plain language of Section 54, exemption can be claimed only for one residential house. The Tribunal emphasized that the factual position was undisputed that the assessee had purchased two independent houses at different locations, and the legal question was whether exemption could be allowed for both. The Tribunal held that only one house qualifies for exemption under Section 54.The Court found no merit in the contention that the rejection was without material evidence. The Tribunal's decision was based on the plain statutory language and undisputed facts, thus constituting sufficient material to reject the claim for exemption on the second house.Issue (iii): Applicability of precedent in D. Anand Basapa v. ITOThe precedent cited by the assessee was a decision of the Karnataka High Court in D. Anand Basapa v. ITO, where exemption under Section 54 was allowed for acquisition of two flats. However, the facts in that case were materially different. The two flats were adjacent units in the same building and had been physically combined by opening a door between them to form a single residential unit. The builder had also confirmed this modification.The Karnataka High Court held that despite the flats being separately tenanted at one point, the combined flats constituted one residential house for the purpose of Section 54 exemption. This factual finding was central to the decision.In contrast, the present case involved two independent houses situated at different locations (one in Delhi and another in Faridabad) with no physical or legal unification. The Tribunal and the Court held that the precedent was distinguishable and inapplicable because the present facts did not show the two houses as a single residential unit.Issue (iv): Legality of impugned ordersThe impugned orders of the AO, CIT(A), and ITAT were examined for legal sustainability. The AO's partial allowance and rejection of exemption for the second house was based on statutory interpretation. The CIT(A) had allowed exemption for both houses relying on the D. Anand Basapa decision, which the Tribunal later reversed on grounds of factual distinction and statutory interpretation.The Court upheld the Tribunal's order as legally sustainable, noting that the CIT(A)'s reliance on the precedent was misplaced due to the different factual matrix. The Court also declined to entertain additional points raised orally by the appellant which were not pleaded or raised before the Tribunal.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSThe Court held that under the plain language of Section 54 of the Income Tax Act, exemption from capital gains arising from sale of a residential house is available only on acquisition of one residential house, not multiple independent houses.In distinguishing the precedent of D. Anand Basapa v. ITO, the Court emphasized:'The said judgment, thus, proceeds on a different fact situation. The two flats purchased were combined to make one residential unit. The said case could not be applied to the facts of the case of the assessee where two independent houses situated at different locations were purchased.'The Court concluded that the authorities below were justified in rejecting the exemption claim for the second house and that no substantial question of law arises for interference. The appeal was dismissed accordingly.