The ITAT denied a taxpayer’s Rs 2.63 crore exemption under Section 54F after finding that a property gifted to his father just days before a sale was a “colourable device” to avoid tax. The Tribunal noted that the taxpayer continued to live in the same house, indicating no real transfer, and held that such arrangements cannot be used to claim tax benefits.
In a ruling that draws a clear line between legitimate tax planning and tax avoidance, the Hyderabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) rejected a taxpayer’s claim for capital gains exemption after finding that a last-minute property gift to his father was merely a “camouflage” to save tax.
The case — Rachit V. Shah vs ITO (AY 2015-16, order dated March 15, 2023) — highlights how timing and intent can play a decisive role in tax disputes involving Section 54F of the Income Tax Act.
What triggered the dispute
The taxpayer, an individual based in Hyderabad, had sold a capital asset (land) during FY 2014-15 and earned substantial long-term capital gains.
To save tax on these gains, he claimed an exemption of Rs 2.63 crore under Section 54F, stating that the proceeds were invested in a new residential property.
However, there is a key condition: To claim this exemption, a taxpayer must not own more than one residential house at the time of sale.
The crucial move: Gift to father
Just days before selling the land, the taxpayer executed a gift deed:
October 27, 2014 – Residential house gifted to father
November 3, 2014 – Agreement to sell land executed
The gap between the two events was barely a week.
By transferring the property to his father, the taxpayer effectively reduced the number of houses in his name on paper — making himself eligible for the Section 54F exemption.
What the tax department argued
The Assessing Officer (AO) and later the CIT(A) were not convinced. They argued that the gift was not a genuine transfer, but a planned step. It was done just before the sale to meet eligibility conditions. The taxpayer was effectively still in control of the property.
The authorities termed the transaction a “colourable device” — a legal term used when a transaction is structured only to avoid tax without any real substance.
Timeline raised red flags
The ITAT placed strong emphasis on the sequence of events.
Gift executed: 27 October 2014
Sale agreement: 3 November 2014
Such close timing, the Tribunal noted, was not a coincidence, but indicated a pre-arranged plan to avoid tax liability.
No real change in ownership
One of the most important findings was that the taxpayer continued to live in the same property even after gifting it to his father.
This, according to the Tribunal, showed that the gift was only on paper and there was no real transfer of possession or control.
ITAT’s key observation: ‘Camouflage to avoid tax’
After analysing the facts, the Tribunal made a strong observation: Even though a gift may appear genuine on paper, when examined along with surrounding circumstances, it can reveal the real intention — in this case, to claim tax exemption.
The ITAT held that the gift was not driven by natural love and affection. It was an artificial arrangement to fit into Section 54F conditions. The entire exercise was a pre-planned strategy to reduce tax.
Assessee’s defence — and why it failed
The taxpayer argued that gifting property to a father is a valid and legal act, tax planning is allowed under law and the timing was merely a coincidence.
He also pointed out that his father later sold the property independently.
However, the Tribunal was not persuaded. It said that intent must be judged from conduct and surrounding facts, not just legal form.
Final verdict
The ITAT upheld the tax department’s view and ruled that the gift deed was a “colourable device”. The taxpayer had multiple houses in substance and Section 54F exemption was wrongly claimed. As a result, the Rs 2.63 crore exemption was denied, and the appeal was dismissed.
Why this case matters for taxpayers
This ruling sends a clear message: Simply restructuring ownership on paper may not work. Tax authorities — and courts — will look at timing, behavior, real intent. If a transaction lacks genuine substance, it can be treated as tax avoidance.
Disclaimer:
This article is based on the facts and findings of a specific Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) order in the case of Rachit V. Shah vs ITO. The ruling is case-specific and depends on the unique facts, timing, and evidence presented before the Tribunal. Tax laws are subject to interpretation, and similar transactions may be treated differently based on individual circumstances. Readers are advised to consult a qualified tax professional before taking any financial or tax-related decisions.
aniltikotekar4sme.com 