9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (6) TMI 576X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... return of income declaring income of Rs. 5,66,452/- in which it had declared Long Term Capital Gains on sale of shares of Rs. 1,94,10,116/- after claiming exemption u/s 54F of the Act of Rs. 90,85,586/-. There was an audit objection regarding the claim of exemption u/s 54F on the ground that the assessee is not eligible to claim exemption as the assessee had offered income from two house properties at Trichy and Bangalore respectively u/s 64(1)(iv) for which the assessee was considered to be the deemed owner of the said properties. Thereafter notice u/s 263 of the Act was issued on 20.9.2011 to set aside the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 on 27.10.2009 on the ground that ownership includes deemed ownership and hence, the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a logical conclusion, the minor child has to be treated as an assessee. If by applying the provisions of section 54F, there is no income in the hands of minor child to be added under section 64(1A), the benefit cannot be denied on the ground that father of the minor child has a residential house at the time of transfer of capital asset. The denial is possible only by taking hyper technical view of the matter and by taking that father is the assessee in the sense that tax is being imposed on him and not on minor child. It would be fair and reasonable to hold that a minor child in the circumstances given above is entitled to benefit of the provisions of section 54F. Accordingly, the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was to be uphel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o be decided is whether on the date of transfer of the original asset the assessee was owner of more than one residential house other than the new asset or not. The assessee has explained that the income from house property from two houses was shown in his return of income because of the provisions of section 64(1) of the Act only and he is not the owner of the houses. We find that section 64(1)(iv) reads as under: "64. [(1)] In computing the total income of any individual, there shall be included all such income as arises directly or indirectly- ** ** ** (iv) subject to the provisions of clause (i) of section 27, to the spouse of such individual from assets transferred directly or indirectly to the spo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in what circumstances income from the two house properties in question was shown in his return of income. We find that the CIT has not examined the facts properly and has not passed a speaking order on the issue whether the assessee was owner of both the properties in question or merely because of the provisions of section 64 or for any other reason the income from house properties in question was shown in the return of income of the assessee. We find that in the case of Madan Lal Bassi (supra) the facts were distinct and different from the facts of the instant case. In that case deduction u/s 54F was claimed by the minor which was denied on the ground that the father in whose hands income of minor was clubbed was owner of residential house ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
