9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (11) TMI 864 - AT - Income TaxEntitlement to cost of improvement and consequent indexed cost of improvement - Assessee jointly owned by the assessee and his wife - HELD THAT - Structures show boundary wall, gate, windows, fitting etc but it is not clear that this structure is located on the same land which was sold by the assessee and his wife. As we have noted above, the assessee s wife who was holding 50% title on the said land, has not been allowed cost of improvement or indexed cost of improvement by the AO and no further appeal or any other proceedings have been initiated by her accepting the rejection of claim by the AO. No hesitation to hold that the assessee is not entitled for any cost of improvement and consequent indexed cost of improvement. Therefore, this claim of the assessee being not sustainable, stands dismissed. Benefit of section 54F denied as no investment whatsoever has been made in the name of the assessee - HELD THAT - In this case, the assessee has purchased property in the name of his wife and son we are of the view that the exemption u/s. 54F cannot be denied to the assessee. In view of cases RAVINDER KUMAR ARORA 2011 (9) TMI 343 - DELHI HIGH COURT , we set aside the orders of lower authorities and direct the AO to recalculate the exemption u/s.54F of the Act keeping in view the amount of investment made by the assessee towards purchase of said flat as per provisions of Section 54F. Also see SHRI KAMAL WAHAL 2013 (1) TMI 401 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Issues:
- Appeal against order of CIT(A) for assessment year 2012-13. - Disallowance of exemption u/s.54 of the I.T. Act. - Denial of indexed cost of improvement on property. - Denial of benefit of section 54F due to property purchase in wife's name. - Addition of &8377; 53,020 to total income. Issue 1: Appeal against CIT(A) Order The appeal was filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A)-2, Bhubaneswar for the assessment year 2012-13. The assessee raised grounds challenging the arbitrary, illegal, and erroneous nature of the order, seeking deletion of additions to total income disallowing exemption u/s.54 of the I.T. Act. Issue 2: Disallowance of Exemption u/s.54 of the I.T. Act The assessee contended that the AO and CIT(A) did not allow indexed cost of improvement on the property, which the assessee argued was unjust and unreasonable. The AO relied on details filed before the Civil Court, while the assessee claimed improvement based on photographs showing enhancements. The tribunal noted that the wife of the assessee, co-owner of the property, had not been allowed any improvement cost, leading to dismissal of the claim. Issue 3: Denial of Indexed Cost of Improvement The tribunal observed that the AO had denied cost of improvement due to lack of supporting evidence like bills or photos confirming enhancements. The tribunal found that the details submitted before the Civil Court were crucial and could not be disregarded without concrete evidence of improvements by the assessee, ultimately dismissing the claim for indexed cost of improvement. Issue 4: Denial of Benefit under Section 54F The assessee was denied benefit under section 54F as the property was purchased in the name of the wife and son. Citing judicial pronouncements, the assessee argued for a liberal interpretation of the law to include legal heirs for exemption. Relying on various court decisions, the tribunal held that the exemption under section 54F could not be denied merely due to property purchase in the wife's name, directing the AO to recalculate the exemption accordingly. Issue 5: Addition to Total Income Regarding the addition of &8377; 53,020, the tribunal confirmed the addition as the AR did not present any arguments, resulting in the confirmation of the addition to the total income. In conclusion, the tribunal partly allowed the appeal, directing the AO to recalculate the exemption under section 54F while confirming the addition of &8377; 53,020 to the total income.
|
