9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (3) TMI 176 - AT - Income TaxDenying exemption u/s 54/54F - Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG) - investment / purchase of new residential property in the name of wife - HELD THAT - In the case of the assessee, the jurisdiction and PAN of the assessee have been admittedly transferred to Delhi. The appeal of the assessee was decided by the Ld. CIT(A)-28, New Delhi. Therefore, Ld. CIT(A) is bound to follow the Judgments of the Hon ble Delhi High Court. The jurisdiction in the case of assessee since transferred to Delhi even at the first appellate stage, therefore, the jurisdiction lies with the Hon ble Delhi High Court M/S AAR BEE INDUSTRIES 2013 (7) TMI 94 - DELHI HIGH COURT - Also see SHRI KAMAL WAHAL 2013 (1) TMI 401 - DELHI HIGH COURT The issue is squarely covered by the above decisions of the Hon ble Delhi High Court relied upon by the Learned Counsel for the Assessee. since the entire sale amount of long term capital gain have been invested in purchase of other property in the name of wife of assessee, assessee would be entitled for exemption on account of long term capital gains. In this view of the matter, we set aside the Orders of the authorities below and delete the entire addition. The A.O. is directed to allow exemption of assessee.
Issues:
1. Denial of exemption under section 54/54F of the I.T. Act, 1961 for long term capital gains. Analysis: The appeal was filed against the order denying exemption under sections 54/54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2014-2015. The assessee had shown income from salary and other sources, along with long term capital gains from the sale of two properties. The total gain from both properties was invested in a new property in the name of the assessee's wife. The Assessing Officer (AO) denied the exemption based on a judgment from the Punjab and Haryana High Court, stating that the benefit is not available if the subsequent property is purchased by a person other than the assessee, even if it's a close relative. The AO made an addition of the entire gain amount to the assessee's income. The assessee challenged this addition before the Ld. CIT(A), citing judgments from the Delhi High Court in similar cases where the benefit was allowed. However, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal, stating that the jurisdiction lies with the Punjab & Haryana High Court based on the filing location and assessment jurisdiction. The Learned Counsel for the Assessee argued that the jurisdictional High Court should be the Delhi High Court since the assessee's case was transferred to Delhi and the appeal was decided there. Citing judgments from the Delhi High Court, the counsel emphasized that the new property need not be purchased exclusively in the assessee's name and that full exemption is allowed if the entire purchase consideration is paid by the assessee, even if the property is in joint ownership. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee's arguments, noting that the jurisdiction and PAN of the assessee were transferred to Delhi. As the appeal was decided by the Ld. CIT(A) in Delhi, the Tribunal held that the Delhi High Court's judgments apply. Since the entire sale amount was invested in a property in the name of the assessee's wife, the Tribunal allowed the exemption and directed the AO to make the necessary adjustments. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, setting aside the orders of the lower authorities and deleting the entire addition. The AO was directed to grant the exemption to the assessee as per the provisions of sections 54/54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
|
