9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition in respect of 8,000 bonus shares of Nestle India Ltd. received by the assessee as a gift. 2. Deduction under section 54F of the Income Tax Act. Issue 1: Deletion of Addition in Respect of 8,000 Bonus Shares of Nestle India Ltd. The revenue's appeal questioned whether the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 31,96,258 made on account of unexplained cash credit and Rs. 8,61,900 as concealed investment. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed the claim of gifts of 8,000 shares from Sri Jiwan Ram Marda and Sri Sushil Marda, asserting that the shares were not transferred to the assessee's demat account and the donors did not hold sufficient shares. The AO added the sale proceeds of 6,300 shares as income from other sources under section 68 and the value of the remaining 1,700 shares as undisclosed investment under section 69. The CIT(A) deleted these additions, noting that the shares were transferred to the broker's demat account for sale and the proceeds were credited to the assessee's bank account. The CIT(A) emphasized that the donors were the actual holders of the shares, and the source of the shares was explained. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the gift was valid even if the shares were not registered in the assessee's name. It referenced the case of Sheila Devi Chamria v. Tara Chand Sareogi, where it was held that a gift of shares is complete when handed over with a blank transfer form, and non-recording in the company's books does not invalidate the gift. The Tribunal found the donors had sufficient shares and the transfer to the broker's account substantiated the gift. Thus, the addition under section 68 and 69 was not justified, and the deletion of Rs. 31,96,258 and Rs. 8,61,900 was sustained. Issue 2: Deduction under Section 54F of the Income Tax ActThe assessee claimed a deduction under section 54F for the investment in a new residential house property. The AO disallowed the claim, arguing that the assessee could not produce the original map of the property and that purchasing part of a residential house does not qualify for exemption under section 54F. The CIT(A) partially allowed the deduction, granting Rs. 4,80,711 but disallowing Rs. 12,00,000, reasoning that the latter amount was financed by a bank loan, and only the net consideration invested by the assessee should be considered for exemption. The Tribunal disagreed with the CIT(A), holding that section 54F does not require the net consideration to be reinvested directly. It cited the case of ITO v. K.C. Gopalan, which allowed exemption under section 54 even if the sale consideration was not directly used for purchasing the new property. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee was entitled to the full exemption of Rs. 16,80,711, as the investment in the new house was made within the stipulated period, regardless of the source of funds. Thus, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal and dismissed the department's appeal on this ground. Conclusion:The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal and allowed the assessee's appeal, confirming the deletion of additions related to the gifted shares and granting the full deduction under section 54F.
|
