9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (7) TMI 131X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llows. The assessee is an individual earning salary as Sr. P.a. in Rail India Technical and Economic Services Limited, a Government of India Undertaking. He was the owner of a house at No. 15, Anna Road, Vijayalakshmipuram, Ambbattur, Madras constructed during the year 1974-75 and used by him as his residence. On 23rd June, 1982 he sold the property for Rs. 98,000 and this sum was deposited in a S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... purchased the house though held benami in the name of his wife and, therefore, he cannot be deprived of the benefit under s. 54. 3. The Revenue is in appeal to contend that the assessee had not fulfilled the conditions under s. 54 because he had himself not purchased a property in his own name and that he had not established that the property purchased was his because his wife has not confirmed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a consideration of the rival submissions, we are of the opinion that there are no merits in this appeal. The Revenue does not dispute the fact that the assessee had invested the amount realised by the sale of the Ambattur property in the purchase of the flat at T. Nagar. Yet the Revenue seeks to defeat the benefit granted by s. 54 on a technical ground that the document was not in the name of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee has also returned the income from the property in his income-tax return. In the circumstances, we agree with the AAC that the property was purchased by the assessee and, therefore, he was entitled to the relief. In this context we may reproduce the relevant observation of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. T.N. Aravinda Reddy (1979) 12 CTR (SC) 423 : (1979) 120 ITR 46 (SC) as follows: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
