THE issue before the Bench is - Whether when the assessee makes
capital gains on sale of property, there is any bar u/s 158BB(4) to claim
deduction of carried forward losses pertaining to house property. And the answer
goes in favour of the assessee.
Facts of the
case
The assessee and his wife were
partners of a firm known as M/s.Century Complex at Manjeri. There was a search
of the premises of the appellant. The firm had filed its returns of income for
the assessment years 1993-94 to 1995-96. The assessee sought for settling the
tax pertaining to the block period before the Settlement Commission, that was,
block period ending with 01.02.1996. The Settlement Commission, while
considering income of the house property and the capital gains on sale of
Century Complex at Manjeri, had taken into account the sale price apart from
brokerage as well as index cost of land appearing in the document. Ultimately
the long term capital gains was arrived at Rs. 22,54,446/-. The applicant had
sought reduction of losses under two categories under the head of house property
- loss from the house property carried forward amounting to Rs. 5,15,389/- and
interest paid on borrowings for previous years that was Rs. 8,20,028/-. So far
as brokerage was concerned whether it was excessive or not, it was not the
subject matter of dispute.
After
considering the stand of the applicant as well as the department, ultimately the
net capital gains was arrived at Rs. 59,57,984/-. The Settlement Commission
entirely agreed with the claim of the applicant in respect of set off of house
property loss carried forward and as well as interest paid on borrowals that is
Rs. 5,15,389/- and Rs. 8,20,058/- respectively. Department challenged the said
order of the Settlement Commission before the Single Judge, though the Single
Judge confirmed the opinion of the Settlement Commission, so far as interest
paid on borrowers, did not agree with the settlement commission so far as
allowing deduction of Rs. 5,15,389/- opining that there was a clear bar against
granting of carried forward loss, except in the case of regular assessment under
Section 158BB(4) of the Act.
On
appeal before the High Court, the counsel for the assessee submitted that if
loss was brought forward pertaining to the block period itself which was
initially not reflected in the regular assessment, he was entitled to seek
benefit of such loss pertaining to the income computed after the search, that
was, determination of undisclosed income. In other words, according to him, as
long as it formed part of the undisclosed income for the block period, he was
entitled to claim such losses brought forward. He places reliance on the
reported decision of the Apex Court in E.K.Lingamurthy and another v.
Settlement Commissioner (IT and WT) and another (SC) (2009-TIOL-07-SC-IT).
Held
that,
++
reading of the above judgment and the interpretation given to Section 158BB(4)
read with Explanation (a) thereto, we are of the opinion, the Single Judge was
not justified in disallowing the benefit granted to the assessee by the
Settlement Commission so far as losses brought forward pertaining to the house
property that is Rs. 5,15,389/-. In the light of observation of the Apex Court
pertaining to Section 158BB(4) read with Explanation (a) how the loss brought
forward could be considered while determining the undisclosed income and the
benefit thereunder is in accordance with the procedure under the Act. So far as
the interest paid on borrowals, it is also justified. Therefore, the appeal of
the department fails and appeal of the party assessee deserves to be
allowed.
No comments:
Post a Comment