I.T.A. No. 4187/Del/2012
Assessment Year: 2009-10
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH `G' NEW DELHI
BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER,
AND
SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
I.T.A.No.4187/Del/2012
Asstt.Year: 2009-10
ITO, vs Shri Samir Jasuja,
Ward 11(2), 1511-B, Beverly Park-2,
New Delhi. DLF Phase-2, Gurgaon.
(PAN: AAOPJ6453G)
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant by: Shri Sujit Kumar, Sr. DR
Respondent by : Shri ved Jain, Adv.
Date of Hearing: 19.10.2015
Date of pronouncement: 24.11.2015
ORDER
PER CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER
This appeal by the revenue has been filed against the order of the CIT(A)-
XIII dated 7.5.2012 passed in Appeal No. 214/11-12 for assessment year 2009-
10.
2. The main grounds raised by the revenue read as under:-
"1. The Learned CIT(A) has erred on the facts and
circumstances of the case and in law in allowing the
notional loss of Rs. 37,73.273/- on F&O foreign
currency transaction..
1
I.T.A. No. 4187/Del/2012
Assessment Year: 2009-10
2. The Learned CIT(A) has erred on facts and
circumstances of the case and in law in allowing the
claim of Rs. 2.00.87,987/- without the assessee
fulfilling the conditions prescribed under section
54F of the Income tax act, 1961."
3. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to this appeal are that an order u/s
143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was passed on 16.12.2011 at assessed
income of Rs. 3,04,44,615 as against the returned income of Rs.43,59,730/-.
The Assessing Officer made disallowances including impugned two
disallowances viz. first disallowance of loss incurred on account of F&O
transaction in foreign currency in stock exchange and second disallowance of
claim of exemption u/s 54F of the Act by holding that the assessee was owner
of more than one property. The aggrieved assessee carried the matter before the
first appellate authority and both these grounds were allowed and impugned
additions deleted. Now, the aggrieved revenue is before this Tribunal in this
second appeal with the ground as reproduced hereinabove.
Ground No. 1
4. Apropos ground no.1, ld. DR submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has erred on
the facts and circumstances of the case and in law in allowing the notional loss
of Rs. 37,73.273/- on F&O foreign currency transaction. Ld. DR supporting the
action of the Assessing Officer submitted that in view of the specific
clarification contained in Board's Instruction No. 3/2010 dated 23.3.10, the
impugned loss claimed by the assessee under the business head was rightly
2
I.T.A. No. 4187/Del/2012
Assessment Year: 2009-10
treated as notional loss and the same was not allowed to be set off from the
other heads of income or to carry forward the same to the subsequent years.
5. Replying to the above, learned counsel of the assessee submitted that the
loss suffered by the assessee on the basis of actual transaction in the foreign
exchange derivatives is allowable and the observations of the Assessing Officer
that the transactions are based on marked to market losses is factually correct.
He further pointed out assessee's paper book page no. 64 to 66 and submitted
that on 31.3.09, the assessee had a credit balance of Rs.25,26,727 against the
payment of Rs. 63 lakh made by the assessee during the year, thus, net loss
suffered by the assessee during the relevant financial period is allowable.
Further elaborating the alternative plea of the assessee, learned counsel of the
assessee submitted that the assessee has suffered gross loss of Rs.2.32 crores
and earned a gross profit of Rs.1.94 crore, as such, net loss was Rs.33.73 crore
which is not a notional loss but from the facts of the case, it is clear that the loss
is an actual loss and the same is allowable to the assessee as per section 43(5) of
the Act.
6. Learned counsel of the assessee also placed reliance on following
judgments:-
1. CIT vs Kapil Nagpal 2015 (9) TMI 613 Delhi High Court
2. IVF Advisors (P) Ltd. vs ACIT Mumbai (2015) 55 taxmann.om 469
(Mumbai Trib.)
3
I.T.A. No. 4187/Del/2012
Assessment Year: 2009-10
3. HB Stockholdings Ltd. vs CIT, Delhi (2013) 33 taxmann.com 154 (Delhi
Trib)
4. DCIT vs Paterson Securities (P) Ltd. (2010) 127 ITD 386 (Chennai)
5. DCIT vs SSKI Investors Services (P) Ltd. (2009) 29 SOT 78 (Mum)
(URO)
6. Smt. Maya A. Ajwani vs ITO-7(2)(4), Mumbai (2015) 56 taxmann.com
255 (Mumbai-Trib.)
7. Sunil Sachdeva vs ACIT, Gurgaon (2013) 31 taxmann.com 86 (Delhi
Trib.)
7. On careful consideration of above submissions, from careful perusal of the
impugned order, we note that the CIT(A) has dealt this issue in para 6.3 at page
8 of the impugned order wherein he has held as under:-
"6.3 I have considered the submission of the appellant
and observation of the assessing officer. It is seen that
ASSESSING OFFICER has made disallowance of loss of
Rs.37,73,273/- incurred on account of F&O transactions in
foreign currency in a recognized stock exchange. It has been
observed by the Assessing Officer that these transactions
represents marked to market losses and in view of the Board's
Instruction No. 03/2010 dated 23rd March, 2010 such losses are
not allowable. On the other hand the appellant has contended
that this is an actual loss incurred during the year on the
transactions done on recognized stock exchange in foreign
currency and this is not a notional loss and accordingly the
above instruction of Board is not applicable. In support of his
contention, the appellant has filed copy of the transactions ledger
with M/s PACE Financial Services and PACE Financial Stock
Broking. The same is filed at page 197 to 199 of the paper book.
The appellant has also filed copy of bank statements running
with HSBC Bank where from the payments have been made to the
brokers. It has been further contented that in any case this being
a loss incurred during the year is an allowable loss. 1 have
perused the facts and on going through the same. It is observed
that the appellant has entered into these F&O transactions
4
I.T.A. No. 4187/Del/2012
Assessment Year: 2009-10
during the year. In respect of the various transactions entered
into by the appellant he has incurred loss of Rs.2,32,10,575/- and
earned profit of Rs. 1,94,37,302/-. Thus there is an actual loss of
Rs.37,73,273/- during the year in such transactions. Against this
the appellant has made a payment of Rs.63 Lac on various dates
to the Broker. After adjusting the above losses there is a credit
balance with the broker of Rs.25,26,727/-. In view of these facts
the observation of the Assessing Officer that the above said loss
is a notional loss and represents marked to market is not correct.
It is not a notional entry which has been passed on the last day of
the financial year and represents the value as per the market
value on 31st March. It is a running account whereby profit and
loss are being incurred on settlement day and amount being
debited and credited on account of loss or the profit as the case
may be. Accordingly this being an actual loss net balance of the
profit and loss earned/incurred is allowable under the provisions
of the Act. The Board circular regarding notional loss is not
applicable to such transactions. The Assessing Officer is
accordingly directed to allow the loss incurred on F&O foreign
currency transactions. This ground of appeal is allowed."
8. On careful consideration of above rival submissions and operative part of
the impugned order on the issue from the assessment order, we observe that the
main allegation of the Assessing Officer was that as per specific clarification
contained in Board's instruction (supra), the loss claimed by the assessee under
the business head is a notional loss whereas the CIT(A), after considering the
facts and circumstances of the case and analyzing the claim of the assessee,
observed that the assessee has entered in various F&O transactions and he has
incurred loss and has also earned profit and finally he sustained actual loss of
Rs.37,73,273 during the relevant financial year from such transaction. Ld.
CIT(A) rightly demolished the conclusion of the Assessing Officer that the said
loss is a notional loss and represents marked to market is not correct. We are
5
I.T.A. No. 4187/Del/2012
Assessment Year: 2009-10
also in agreement with the conclusion of the CIT(A) that the claim of the
assessee is not in pursuance to the notional entry which has been passed on the
last date of the financial year and represents the value as per market value as on
31st March. Ld. CIT(A) explicitly held that the entry was passed out of running
account whereby profit and loss which have been incurred on settlement day and
amount have been debited and credited on account of loss or profit as the case
may be. Ld. CIT(A) finally granted relief to the assessee by holding that as per
Circular regarding notional loss is not applicable to the transaction which was
undertaken by the assessee as F&O transaction. On logical analysis of the order
of the first appellate authority on this issue, we reach to a logical conclusion that
the Assessing Officer made addition regarding the Board Circular which is not
actually applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case, therefore,
the CIT(A) was right in concluding this issue in favour of the assessee. We are
unable to see any perversity or any other valid reason to interfere with the order
of the ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, ground no. 1 of the revenue fails.
Ground No.2
9. Apropos ground no.2, ld. DR contended that the Learned CIT(A) has
erred on facts and circumstances of the case and in law in allowing the
claim of Rs. 2.00.87,987/- without the assessee fulfilling the conditions
prescribed under section 54F of the Income tax act, 1961 because the
assessee made a claim without verifying the pre-conditions prescribed
6
I.T.A. No. 4187/Del/2012
Assessment Year: 2009-10
under the said provisions. Ld. DR took us through relevant part of the
assessment order and submitted that after detailed deliberations and
consideration of the assessee's stand and explanation, the Assessing
Officer rightly held that exemption u/s 54 of the Act is available only if
on the date of transfer of the original asset, the taxpayer does not own
more than one residential house property other than the new house. Ld.
DR further submitted that since the assessee owned more than one house
property on the date of transfer of original asset, therefore, he was not
entitled for deduction u/s 54 of the Act. Ld. DR also reiterated the
allegations of the Assessing Officer from page 9 to 12 of the assessment
order and submitted that the assessee has not able to prove that the source
of above investment in capital gain account was the maturity amount of
the same funds as necessary evidences thereof have not been furnished
and the deduction u/s 54 or 54F will be available to the taxpayer only if
the assessee invests either out of sale proceeds of the asset of his other
personal funds but not from borrowed funds.
10. Replying to the above, learned counsel of the assessee supported the
order of the first appellate authority and submitted that the Assessing Officer
has alleged that the assessee has gifted property no. G-602 to his wife but the
rental income is being shown by him and thus, the assessee should be
considered as the owner of the property. Learned counsel of the assessee
7
I.T.A. No. 4187/Del/2012
Assessment Year: 2009-10
vehemently contended that the Assessing Officer has also wrongly alleged that
the Aravali farm is a residential house and the assessee has not been able to
prove the source of investment in the capital gain scheme account. Learned
counsel of the assessee submitted that these allegations of the Assessing Officer
are factually incorrect and are also legally untenable as the assessee was the
owner of only one property i.e. JPH-03, Central Park, Sector 42, Gurgaon
having 50% share only which is clear from the copy of the conveyance deed
available at assessee's paper book page 116 to 119. Learned counsel of the
assessee further pointed out that the assessee was the owner of property no. G-
602 till 29.1.09 only and when the assessee has gifted said property through the
registered deed to his wife, then the assessee did not remain the owner of the
said property on the date of sale of the property on which the capital gain has
arisen i.e. 2.2.2009. He also shows us Apartment Buyer Agreement at page 142
and 143 and gift deed available at paper book page 146-149 which was
submitted before the authorities below. Learned counsel of the assessee
submitted that the Assessing Officer did not properly consider the submissions
and explanation of the assessee that the rental income for the whole year has
been shown by the assessee because the implication of the clubbing provision as
per section 64(1) of the Act and only showing the rental income does not mean
that the assessee continues to be the owner of the gifted property. Learned
counsel of the assessee placed reliance on the decision of ITAT Mumbai `B'
Bench in the case of Smt. Maya A. Ajwani vs ITO-7(2)(4), Mumbai (2015) 56
8
I.T.A. No. 4187/Del/2012
Assessment Year: 2009-10
taxmann.com 255 (Mumbai-Trib.) and submitted that in the similar set of facts
and circumstances, it was held that gift of house to husband prior to the date of
transfer of original asset other than any residential house cannot be disregarded
for the purpose of reckoning assessee's eligibility for deduction u/s 54 of the
Act even if the assessee along with her husband continue to reside in the same
house after gift. The ITAT Mumbai also held that section 64(1)(iv) will not
operate to nullify gift and would operate only to club income from gifted house
in the hands of donor and in this situation, the gift cannot be regarded as sham
transaction merely because gift was made by the assessee to his/her spouse.
11. On careful consideration of above submissions of both the sides, from the
operative part of the impugned order of the first appellate authority, we note that
the first appellate authority had dealt with this issue in para 10.2 at page 19 of
the impugned order and the relevant observations of the ld. CIT(A) appear on
page 12 which read as under:-
"On going through the provisions of section 54F it is noticed
that the benefit is not available to an assessee where the
assessee owns more than one residential house on the date of
transfer of the original asset on which the capital gain has
arisen. In this case the capital gain has arisen on 2nd
February, 2009. The allegation of the Assessing Officer that
the appellant was owning following three residential houses
on 2nd February, 2009:-
1. JPH-03, Central Park, Sector 42, Gurgaon, 50% share
2. G-602, Central Park, Sector 42, Gurgaon
3. Aravali Farm, 50% share
There is no dispute so far as JPH-03, Central Park-, Sector
9
I.T.A. No. 4187/Del/2012
Assessment Year: 2009-10
42, Gurgaon is concerned as the assessee also admits that he
was 50% owner of this flat. As regards the flat no. G-602, the
contention of the appellant is that he has gifted this property
to his wife on 29th January, 2009 and as such he ceased to be
the owner on 29th January, 2009. This fact is also noted by
the Assessing Officer. However, the Assessing Officer is of
the view that assessee having gifted the property to his wife,
still continues to be the beneficial owner and showing rental
income in his hand. In this regard I notice that as per the gift
deed, the appellant has conveyed all rights and privileges
whatsoever of the said property forever and has not kept any
right with him. It has been further stated in the gift deed that
the donee will be the exclusive and absolute owner and that
the donee shall enjoy the property with absolute rights
including the exclusive unrestricted right to sell or transfer
the said property. The physical vacant possession has also
been handed over to the Donee. The gift deed is a registered
deed registered before the Sub-Registrar, Gurgaon on 29
January, 2009. In view of these facts I hold that the
observation of the Assessing Officer in the assessment order
that the appellant continues to be the beneficial owner is not
correct. The second contention of the Assessing Officer that
the appellant is showing the rental income in his hand and
thus appellant is taking a contradictory stand. Firstly by
merely showing rental income in his hands, the appellant
can't become owner of the property. Secondly one needs to
find out the reasons for showing such rental income in his
hands. There is no dispute to the fact that appellant was
owner of this flat till 29th January, 2009 and accordingly
rental income upto that date in any case is to be assessed in
his hands. Further appellant having gifted this flat to his wife
on 29th January, 2009 thereafter the appellant despite not
being owner of the flat, still the rental income from such
income is to be clubbed in his hand in view of the provisions
of Section 64(1 )(iv) of the Act. Thus there is no contradiction
as alleged by the A.O. The explanation of the appellant in this
regard is found to be correct that it is not his rental income.
It is because of the clubbing of income provision that income
earned is being included in his hands under Section 64(1
)(iv). This does not mean that the appellant is the owner of
the property. The contention of the Assessing Officer that the
appellant is taking contradictory stands is not correct. The
fact remains that as on the date when the original asset on
10
I.T.A. No. 4187/Del/2012
Assessment Year: 2009-10
which the capital gain has arisen i.e. 2nd February, 2009
appellant was not the owner of the said flat.
The next allegation of the Assessing Officer is that the
appellant is owner of a farm house for which he has referred
to definition of `Farm House' that is a type of building or
house which serves the residential purposes in a rural or
agricultural land. There can't be any dispute about the Farm
House, if there is a house on the farm land. But the issue is
whether there is a house on the agriculture (farm) land.
There does not seem to be any basis for the Assessing Officer
to conclude that there is a house on the farm. The Assessing
Officer has picked up the figure of investment from the
statement of affairs and without examining the fact whether it
is an agricultural land or a house constructed on agricultural
land has assumed that there is a house on such agriculture
land. This observation of the Assessing Officer that appellant
is having a house on the farm land is without any basis. As
explained by the appellant, the appellant has only
agricultural land with no construction whatsoever on the said
land. The Assessing Officer has simply picked up the assets
stated in the statement of affairs ignoring the fact that the
appellant has paid a sum of Rs.5,50,000/- for 50% right in
the agricultural land being plot no.C-66 in Aravali Retreat.
There being no material to allege that there is construction
and there is a house, the same cannot be considered to be a
residential house for the purpose of Section 54F of the Act. It
being an agricultural land, it cannot be considered a
residential house for the purpose of Section 54F of the Act.
In view of the above stated facts, it is established that
appellant was having only one residential property and hence
the appellant fulfils the condition so as to not to own more
than one house on the date on which the capital gain arose
for claiming the benefit of Section 54F of the Act.
The Assessing Officer has further denied the benefit under
Section 54F on the ground that the appellant was required to
deposit the net consideration before the due date of
furnishing return of income i.e. 31st July, 2009. He has
further stated that the amount of capital gain realized by the
appellant was first deposited in the mutual fund and then
appellant has not been able to prove the source of the
investment in respect of the investment made in the capital
11
I.T.A. No. 4187/Del/2012
Assessment Year: 2009-10
gain scheme. Further he has held that the amount to be
deposited in Capital Gain Scheme be the same amount as
realized from the sale of original assets. In this regard the
Assessing Officer has cited the judgment of the Bombay
Bench in the case of Milan Sharat Ruparel vs. ACIT 121 TTJ
770 (Mum) whereby it was held that investment of capital
gain account scheme should not come from the borrowed
funds.
On going through the facts I notice that the above contention
of the Assessing Officer is not correct. Further there is no
requirement under the law that the appellant should deposit
the money received on sale of original capital asset in the
Capital Gain Scheme. The only requirement is that the money
should be deposited in the capital gain account scheme
before the due date of filing return. Admittedly in this case
there is no dispute that the money has been deposited before
the due date of filing the return. However the contention of
the Assessing Officer that the capital gain realized has been
first utilized for deposit with the mutual fund cannot be a
ground for disallowing the exemption. There is no restriction
on utilization of capital gain realized from sale of original
asset till its deposit in the Capital Gain Scheme. The
appellant is free to deal with the same as it may like. The
allegation of the Assessing Officer that the appellant has not
been able to prove the source of investment is also not
correct. During the course of assessment proceedings the
appellant has filed the relevant details of the capital gain and
its utilization along with bank account. The money has been
deposited in the mutual fund and on redemption of the mutual
fund it has been deposited in the capital gain account
scheme. Accordingly the allegation of the Assessing Officer
in this regard is also not correct. The appellant on sale of
original assets first deposited the proceeds in his bank
account. From there he deposited the money temporarily with
mutual funds and before the due date of deposit in Capital
Gain Scheme, encashed the mutual funds and deposited the
amount in Capital Gain Scheme. Thus the appellant has
complied with all the conditions of Section 54F to be eligible
to claim the exemption. The Assessing Officer is accordingly
directed to allow the exemption u/s 54F of the IT Act at Rs.
2,00,87,987/-."
12
I.T.A. No. 4187/Del/2012
Assessment Year: 2009-10
12. In view of above, at the very outset, let us note some admitted and
undisputed facts viz. the assessee gifted property no. G-602 to his wife on
29.1.2009 through a registered gift deed. The assessee sold property on
2.2.2009 on which the impugned capital gain has arisen. The rental
income gifted property was taxed in the hands of the assessee during the
relevant financial year and it is also not in dispute that money accrued
from capital gain has been deposited in the capital gain of amount before
the due date of filing the return.
13. We consider the allegations of the Assessing Officer as well as
conclusion of the CIT(A). In our understanding when the assessee has
parted his legal right through gift deed dated 29.1.2009 and the property
no. G-602 was gifted to his wife, then it cannot be presumed that the
assessee continued to be owner of the said property even after execution
of registered gift deed in favour of his spouse. So far as the taxable
income from the said property is concerned, the assessee's stand gets
support from the order of the ITAT Mumbai Bench in the case of Smt.
Maya wherein it was held that section 64(1)(iv) will not operate to nullify
gift and would operate only to club income in the hands of donor
assessee.
13
I.T.A. No. 4187/Del/2012
Assessment Year: 2009-10
14. At this juncture, it is also relevant to note that the assessee is the
owner of only one property i.e. JPH-03, Central Park, Sector 4, having
50% of share as per conveyance deed available at assessee's paper book
pages 96 to 119 after sale of property on 2.2.2009 out of which impugned
capital gain accrued to the assessee. In these facts and circumstances, the
CIT(A) was right in concluding that during the course of assessment
proceedings, the assessee filed the relevant details of capital gain and its
utilization along with copies of the bank account statement and from these
details, it is amply clear that the money of capital gain has been deposited
in mutual fund and on redemption of the mutual fund, it has been
deposited in the capital gain account scheme. It was also noticed that the
assessee on sale of original assets has deposited the proceeds in his bank
account. From there, he deposited the money temporarily with mutual
funds and before the due date of deposit in Capital Gain Scheme,
encashed the mutual funds and deposited the amount in Capital Gain
Scheme as required by the relevant provisions of the Act. On vigilant and
careful consideration of contention of the Assessing Officer as well as
conclusion of the CIT(A) as noted above, we are of the view that the
Assessing Officer rejected the claim of the assessee u/s 54 of the Act
without any justified reason and on incorrect premise which was rightly
allowed by the CIT(A) after properly appreciating and considering the
facts and circumstances of the case in the light of explanation of the
14
I.T.A. No. 4187/Del/2012
Assessment Year: 2009-10
assessee. We are unable to see any infirmity or any other valid reason to
interfere with the order of the ld. CIT(A) and uphold the same.
Accordingly, ground no. 2 of the revenue is also dismissed.
15. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 24.11.2015.
Sd/- Sd/-
(L.P. SAHU) (C.M. GARG)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Dated: November, 2015
`GS'
Copy forwarded to:
1. Appellant
2. Respondent
3. CIT 4.CIT(A)
5. DR
Asstt. Registrar
15
|