Dhananjay Madhukar Naik v. DCIT (2023) 203 ITD 30 / (2024) 229 TTJ 240 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 54F : Capital gains-Investment in a residential house-Sale of inherited property-Agreement for purchase-Failure to construct-Pendency of litigation-Assessee can not be compelled to treat unutilized portion of funds kept under Capital gains account Scheme as taxable. [S. 45]

Assessee sold a 60 per cent share in an inherited property and computed capital gains.Net capital gains for relevant year were declared and corresponding taxes were paid. Assessing Officer nheld  that assessee had invested in same project from same builder for a consideration of Rs. 12.52 crores and an amount of Rs. 5.86 crores was paid before date of agreement and balance amount of Rs. 6.66 crores was deposited in capital gains account scheme, with intention to pay builder when demanded. However, assessee was able to invest only Rs. 2.22 crores within three years from transaction date. Remaining unutilized amount was initially included in taxable income but was later claimed as exempt by assessee, citing that builder had halted construction and failed to provide possession of flats as per agreement. Aggrieved with same, assessee had also filed a suit in High Court-Assessing Officer brought  unutilized portion of capital gains. Commissioner (Appeals) sustained additions. On appeal the Tribunal held ton record that funds were still in bank account unutilized and case was also pending before High Court and till case was decided or issue was resolved by High Court, assessee was not in a position to utilize funds kept in bank account under capital gains account scheme. Unless and untill, issue was resolved, assessee could not be compelled to treat unutilized portion of funds as taxable. (AY. 2017-18)