No Relief Under Sec. 54F if No Capital Gain Was Declared in ITR | ITAT

Case Details: Rajan Arputharaj Vincent Naveen v. ACIT/DCIT - [2024] 166 taxmann.com 378 (Chennai-Trib.)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member & Jagadish, Accountant Member
• K. Subramaniam, CA & Ms Sailas, Adv. for the Appelant.
• Ms R. Anita, Addl. CIT for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the assessee filed his return of income, which the CPC accepted u/s 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the assessee pleaded that due to a mistake by his previous authorised representative, deduction u/s 54F could not be claimed in the return of income.

However, it was noted that no capital gain was shown in the return of income. The income declared therein was on profit from the ‘business or profession’. The assessee submits that due to a mistake by the previous authorised representative and the assessee, the capital gain deduction u/s 54F could not be claimed in the return of income.

The assessee placed reliance on the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT [2006] 284 ITR 323 (SC) and argued that this Tribunal has ample power to direct the Assessing Officer to consider a new plea of deduction u/s 54F.

ITAT Held

The Tribunal held that, admittedly, no capital gain was shown in the return of income, and no claim was also made under section 54F. Had the assessee been declared capital gain in the return of income and no claim under section 54F thereon, this Tribunal would have directed the Assessing Officer to consider the same, taking support from the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT (supra).

As discussed above, the assessee himself declared income under the head ‘business or profession’, and no capital gain was admitted. Therefore, having no declaration of capital gain in the return of income, directing the Assessing Officer to consider the claim under section 54/54F does not arise. Therefore, no infirmity was found in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), and it is justified. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed.

List of Cases Referred to

• Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT [2006] 157 Taxman 1/284 ITR 323 (SC) (para 7).