Safiya Malik

The High Court of Madras Division Bench of Justice Dr. Anita Sumanth and Justice K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi held that Section 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961—granting long-term capital gains exemption where an individual or HUF transfers a residential house and reinvests in another residential house in India—cannot be denied merely because the original house was demolished before the eventual sale. The tax department had disallowed the exemption on the basis that no residential house existed when the transfer occurred and that the assessee had not deposited the gains under the capital gains scheme. The court found that the transfer was completed through later sale deeds and that the assessee purchased a new house within the prescribed period and accordingly allowed the Section 54 exemption.

The dispute arose from the assessee’s claim of exemption from long-term capital gains tax under Section 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in relation to the sale of a residential property situated in Chennai. The property originally belonged to the assessee’s parents and a Hindu Undivided Family, and a Joint Development Agreement was entered into with a developer in December 1994, pursuant to which the residential structure was demolished in 1995 to enable redevelopment.

Also Read: University Act | On Resignation Of Selected Candidate, Vacancy To Be Filled Under Communal Rotation; Waitlisted Candidate Has No Automatic Right To Appointment: Supreme Court

Following the death of the assessee’s father, the assessee and his mother executed sale deeds in March 1999 and thereafter returned capital gains for the relevant assessment years. The assessee claimed exemption under Section 54 on the ground that the capital gains had been reinvested in a residential property in New Delhi within the prescribed statutory period.

The Assessing Officer rejected the claim, primarily on the grounds that the residential house no longer existed at the time of transfer and that the assessee had not deposited the capital gains under the Capital Gains Scheme. Although the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) allowed the claim, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal reversed the decision, holding that Section 54 was inapplicable. This led to the present appeals before the High Court.

The Court noted that “the facts are not in dispute” and proceeded to examine the transaction as a whole rather than in isolated segments. It observed that “the execution of the Joint Development Agreement does not per se give rise to the incident of transfer” and recorded that the actual transfer took place only upon execution of sale deeds in March 1999.

Addressing the Tribunal’s finding that Section 54 was inapplicable due to demolition of the residential structure, the Bench stated that “the transaction must be seen wholistically” and recorded that the demolition was a direct consequence of the development arrangement. The Court observed that “the Department cannot expect that the house must stand in the same condition till such time the transfer/sale was executed.”

On the issue of reinvestment, the Court noted that “the purchase of asset in New Delhi on 30.01.2001 would fall within the period of one year after the date on which the transfer took place.” It further recorded that “the conditions under Section 54(1) of the Act have been satisfied.”

Dealing with the requirement under Section 54(2), the Court observed that “the circumstance adumbrated under Section 54(2) does not stand attracted” since the assessee had exercised the statutory option of reinvestment within the prescribed period. It stated that “Section 54(2) cannot be insisted upon effacing the option available to an assessee.”

With respect to the Tribunal’s view that income from house property had not been offered, the Court recorded that “there is no necessity to do so, as Section 54 only requires that income from the property should be assessable under the head ‘house property’.”

On the alternate claim under Section 54F, the Court observed that “Sections 54 and 54F are not two sides of the same coin” and recorded that the Tribunal was justified in declining to entertain the alternate claim in the absence of necessary pleadings and factual foundation.

Also Read: Income Tax Act | Section 153C Power Barred For “Other Person” Searches Initiated On/After 01.04.2021; Madras High Court

The Court recorded that “This has admittedly not been done, and hence we do not find anything untoward in the conclusion of the Tribunal in this regard. Accordingly, substantial question of law No.3 is answered against the assessee and in favour of the revenue.

 “T.C.(A) Nos.1163 and 1164 of 2009 are disposed as above. As far as T.C.(A) Nos.1161 and 1162 of 2009 are concerned, no substantial questions have been admitted for resolution, and hence, these Tax case (Appeals) are dismissed.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Arvind P. Datar, Senior Counsel, instructed by Mr. S. Raghunathan, Ms. Sharanya Vaidyanathan, and Mrs. Vardhini Karthik, Advocates

For the Respondents: Mr. J. Narayanaswamy, Senior Standing Counsel

Case Title: C. Aryama Sundaram v. Commissioner of Income Tax

Case Number: TCA Nos. 1161, 1163, 1164 and 1162 of 2009

Bench: Justice Anita Sumanth, Justice K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi