9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 1087X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee is eligible to get the benefit u/s 54F of the Act. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 1263/Hyd/2014 - - - Dated:- 18-1-2017 - SMT P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Revenue : Shri A. Sitarama Rao For The Assessee : Shri A. Srinivas ORDER PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, A.M.: This appeal filed by the revenue is directed against the order of CIT(A)- V, Hyderabad, dated 31/01/2014 for AY 2007-08 wherein the revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in allowing the exemption u/s 54 of the Act placing reliance on jurisdictional High Court decision in the case of CIT Vs. Late MirGulam Khan165 ITR 228(AP) without considering ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (A) sustained the i) disallowance of expenditure to the extent of ₹ 13,85,015/- and deleted the additions made under the heads ii) long term capital gains and iii) unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. 4. The revenue is in appeal before us against the deletion of addition on account of long term capital gains of ₹ 1,87,54,873/-. 5. Briefly the facts relating to the ground raised by the revenue are that while calculating the capital gains on the sale of the property, the assessee had adopted the sale value of ₹ 2,36,70,000 as per the Sub Registrar's Value, by applying the provisions of Section 5OC of the Act and arrived at the capital gains at ₹ 1,82,76,379. But the A.O. has adopted the sale value of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 228 (A) 4. CIT Vs. Kamal Wahal, 258 CTR 251 5. ACIT Vs. N. Ram Kumar, 138 ITD 317 (Hyd.) 7. The CIT(A) after taking into consideration ratios laid down in the aforesaid cases, held that the assessee is eligible for exemption u/s 54F by observing as under: 7.6 As held by various High Courts, Jurisdictional A.P. High Court and Jurisdictional ITAT, Hyderabad, cited above, Section 54F does not specifically state that the sale proceeds of a property has to be re-invested in the name of the assessee only. It only stipulates that the assessee must have re-invested the capital gains in purchase of a new property for claiming deduction u/s 54F. The decisions of CIT Vs Natarajan, Madras High Court, CIT Vs Gulam Ali (AP High Court), CIT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cts on record. The assessee has brought a plot in the name of his wife. The ld. CIT(A) has allowed the deduction u/s 54F relying on the various case laws wherein the definition of the term assessee is extended to the family members of the assessee as section 54/54F are beneficial provisions. But, in the present case, the ld. DR raised an issue, whether the wife who is having independent income can avail the benefit u/s 54F. After careful analysis of the case laws cited by both the counsels, we are of the view that the term assessee was already defined by various courts to include wife and other dependent family members. Whether to exclude those members who are also having independent income is, in our view, misplaced. What is relevant i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a letter confirming the construction of residence and submitted the proof of construction as below: a) Permission from Municipal Corporation b) NOC for building plan issued by Jubilee Hills Cooperative Society c) Water connection permission d) Property assessment receipt e) Electricity bill The above details were forwarded to the ld. DR, who had verified the details and confirmed the same. Considering the above details, we are inclined to treat the above new assets as part of residential property and accordingly, in our view, the assessee is eligible to get the benefit u/s 54F of the Act. 12. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Pronounced in the open court on 18th January, 2017. - - TaxTMI - TMITax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
