Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4.4 The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to note that it is amply evident from the sale deed and other supportive documents, that the assessee's father had received a share in the sale consideration, which is more than sufficient for the CIT(A) for applying the provisions of section 46 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

5.1 The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in withdrawing the benefit of exemption u/ss. 54F and 54EC of the Income-tax Act. without considering the issues in light of s.46 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, despite the categorical directions of this Hon'ble Tribunal. 5.2 The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have seen that there is no reason to deny exemption u/ss. 54F and 54EC of the Income-tax Act, as all the conditions for exemption stand complied with.

2.3 Further, the ld. CIT(A) has observed that as per section 54 of the Act, the benefit will be available only if the asset is happened to be a Long Term Capital Asset since in view of the above fact finding, the asset is treated as short term capital asset. Therefore, deduction under section 54 of the Act will not be available to the assessee. Therefore, Ld. CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to withdraw the deduction granted to the assessee under section 54 of the Act.

2.4 Similarly, the ld. CIT(A) has further observed that as per section 54EC of the Act, the benefit will be available only if the asset is happened to be a Long Term Capital Asset since in view of the above fact finding, the asset is treated as "short term capital asset". Therefore, deduction under section 54EC of the Act will not be available to the assessee. In view of the above, Assessing Officer is directed to withdraw the deduction granted to the assessee under section 54EC of the Act.

4.6 Exemption u/s 54EC:

With respect to Indexation, I agree with the conclusion of the ld. CIT(A) in ITA No 88/CIT(A)-16/2013-14 dated 03.10.2016 that as the asset is treated as short term capital asset, deduction u/s.54 of the Act will not be available to the assessee.

Hence, the AO is directed to withdraw the deduction granted to the assessee u/s 54 of the Act.

4.7 Exemption u/s. 54:

With respect to Indexation, I agree with the conclusion of the ld. CIT(A) in ITA No 88/CIT(A)-16/2013-14 dated 03.10.2016 that as the asset is treated as short term capital asset, deduction u/s 54EC of the Act will not be available to the assessee.

Hence the AO is directed to withdraw the deduction granted to the assessee u/s.54EC of the Act.

5. In result the appeal of the assessee is dismissed."

4. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted the ld. CIT(A) has passed the appellate order erroneously by simply repeating the earlier appellate order and not independently considered the submissions of the assessee without influencing the previous order with respect to application of section 46 of the Transfer of Property Act,1882 as well as application of beneficial provision of section 54 of the Act. It was further submission that both the assessees have acquired the property in 2005 itself when the grandfather executed the settlement deed reserving right of residence for him and his spouse and enjoyment for his son. When life-interest was surrendered, that is also treated as a transfer, which can give rise to a gift tax assessment. The action of the Assessing Officer and the ld. CIT(A) in including the consideration received by the assessee's father in their hands is clearly untenable in the light of section 46 of the Transfer of Property act and the Schedule III to the Wealth Tax Act. By referring to the decision in the case of CIT v. Manjula J Shah 355 ITR 474 (Bom) and in the case of CIT v. Gautam Munabhai Amin 218 taxman 319 (Gujarat), the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the benefit of indexation would be available right from the day the predecessor in title acquired the property, wherever the acquisition is by a mode mentioned in section 49 of the Income Tax Act. Since the asset held was a long term capital asset, the exemption claimed under section 54 and section 54EC of the Act are allowable, as rightly allowed by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order, the ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed for reversion of appellate order passed by the ld. CIT(A). On the other hand, the ld. DR strongly supported the appellate order passed by the ld. CIT(A).