Andhra Networks Limited vs. DCIT (ITAT Hyderabad)

(i) All the aforesaid judgments relied on by the Revenue are cases arising prior to the amendment to Section 2(47) of the Act. The very same judgments show, in particular the judgment of the Full Bench of the Gujarat High Court, the reasons for amendment i.e., even in the absence of a registered deed of transfer, if the transaction in question demonstrates the intention of the parties and after paying the entire consideration agreed upon, the purchaser enjoys the property. The fact that the transaction is not completed by execution of the registered sale deed makes no difference in the eye of law for the purpose of taxes. If the Revenue is entitled to collect tax on such capital gains, even in the absence of a registered document, on the same analogy, the assessee, who is liable to pay the capital gains, is also entitled to the exemption granted under the very Act on such capital gains. That is precisely what the Apex Court has said in Smt.Saroj Aggarwal’s case (supra) that facts should be viewed in natural perspective, having regard to the compulsion of the circumstances of a case. Too hyper technical or legalistic approach should be avoided in looking at a provision which must be equitably interpreted and justly administered. The Courts should place an interpretation making a benevolent and justice oriented inference and the facts must be viewed in the social milieu of a country.

(ii) In that view of the matter, if we look at the facts in a natural perspective, there is no dishonest or improper motive on the part of the assessee in claiming said exemption. The facts seen from the social milieu of our society, it is in natural course of conduct of any law abiding citizen. When capital gain is accrued in him instead of paying tax to the Government, he has invested the money in the aforesaid manner, which gives him the benefit of exemption from payment of capital gains. He satisfies the requirement of the law. By hypertechnical or legalistic approach, such benefit conferred on an assessee cannot be denied. Very fact that the law encourages an assessee to make such investments to avoid payment of tax, such benevolent provision which is meant for such assesses has to be equitably interpreted and justly administered (CIT vs. A. Suresh Rao (Kar HC) followed)