Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2017 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (1) TMI 1240 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAMRevision u/s 263 - there is a lack of enquiry on the part of the A.O. in examining the issue of exemption u/s 54F - Held that:- In the present case on hand, though the assessee did not prove with necessary evidences that the remaining amount of ₹ 20,80,000/- has been spent within the due date u/s 139(1) of the Act, but undoubtedly the assessee has proved that he had spent the amount within the due date specified u/s 139(4) of the Act. Therefore, we are of the view that the assessee is eligible for exemption u/s 54F of the Act, even though the property was purchased in the name of his close family members. In this case, the assessee has purchased the property in the name of his son by entering into sale agreement-cum-GPA. As claimed by the assessee, there is no intention to purchase property in the name of his son, which is evident from the fact that finally the property has been transferred in the name of the assessee. Therefore, the assessee is eligible for exemption u/s 54F of the Act and the A.O. has rightly allowed exemption and hence, we are of the view that there is no prejudice is caused to the revenue. Accordingly, the CIT was incorrect in assuming jurisdiction to revise the assessment order u/s 263 of the Act. - Decided in favour of assessee Computation of capital gain towards transfer of asset between the assessee and his father - transfer - Held that:- In the present case on hand, on perusal of the facts available on record, we find that there is no consideration passed on between the assessee and his father. The consideration has been paid for purchase of property to the seller of the property as per the original sale agreement dated 7.6.2007 has been directly paid by the assessee’s father to the seller. Therefore, we are of the view that there is no transfer within the meaning of section 2(47)(v) of the Act, towards transfer of property between the assessee and his father. Accordingly, we direct the A.O. to delete addition made towards computation of long term capital gain. - Decided in favour of assessee Addition towards cost of construction u/s 69 - Held that:- As we hold that the transaction between the assessee and his father towards transfer of property is a transaction belonging to his father. Since, we hold that the assessee’s father has purchased site in assessee’s name and also the assessee’s father has invested towards construction of property, the A.O. was incorrect in making addition towards cost of construction in the hands of the assessee. The CIT(A) without appreciating the facts, simply confirmed additions made by the A.O. Therefore, we reverse the order of CIT(A) and direct the A.O. to delete additions made towards cost of construction u/s 69 of the Act.- Decided in favour of assessee
|