9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (3) TMI 155 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance of exemption u/s 54F - This exemption was denied to the assessee on the ground that new plot was not purchased by him in his individual name, but it was purchased in the name of HUF. - HELD THAT - Assessee has his share to the extent of 1/4th in the HUF. The other members of HUF are not stranger. They are wife of the assessee and two sons. Money has only been contributed by the assessee. Therefore, to our mind, the facts as available in CIT Vs. Kamal Wahal 2013 (1) TMI 401 - DELHI HIGH COURT are squarely applicable on this case. We allow the appeal of the assessee, and direct the AO to grant exemption under section 54F of the Income Tax Act to the assessee. - decided in favour of assessee.
Issues:
- Disallowance of exemption under section 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961. - Interpretation of whether the house constructed by the assessee on a plot purchased in the name of HUF qualifies for exemption under section 54F. Analysis: 1. The Assessee appealed against the order of the ld.CIT(A)-7, Ahmedabad regarding the disallowance of exemption under section 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The original return of income declared a taxable income of &8377; 3,76,810, and fresh assessment was made under section 143(3). The dispute arose from the purchase of land in the name of HUF and subsequent construction of a house by the assessee, leading to a denial of exemption under section 54F by the Revenue. 2. The central issue was whether the house constructed by the assessee on a plot purchased in the name of HUF qualifies for exemption under section 54F. The Revenue argued that the investment should have been made in the assessee's individual name, while the assessee contended that the investment was solely made by him, fulfilling all conditions for exemption. The assessee cited precedents from the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, Karnataka High Court, and ITAT, Ahmedabad Bench, supporting the claim that exemption under section 54F can be claimed even if the property is purchased jointly. 3. Referring to a specific case, ITAT in the case of Shri Chitrang M. Dave allowed exemption under section 54F where the assessee purchased a flat jointly with his father. Additionally, the decision of CIT Vs. Kamal Wahal highlighted that exemption under section 54F was upheld when the new property was acquired in the name of the assessee's wife. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court emphasized that the new residential property need not be purchased exclusively in the name of the assessee, as long as the investment was made by the assessee and not a stranger. 4. Considering the facts of the present case where the assessee had a share in the HUF along with his wife and two sons, and the investment was solely made by the assessee, the Tribunal found that the circumstances aligned with the precedents cited. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee and directed the AO to grant exemption under section 54F of the Income Tax Act. 5. In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, allowing the appeal and granting exemption under section 54F. The decision was based on the interpretation that the new residential property need not be purchased exclusively in the name of the assessee, as long as the investment was made by the assessee and not a stranger, aligning with established judicial views on the matter. Order pronounced in the Court on 20th February, 2019.
|
