9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 728X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which the entire reinvestment in purchasing the house has been made by the assessee, though the house was purchased in the joint name of the assessee as well as her daughter-in-law, Smt. Purabi Devi. So, when the source of funds invested in the house have come from assessee herself which she has got by selling her property for a sale consideration of ₹ 5,81,19,521/-, she cannot be denied the benefit of section 54 merely because of the fact that the property was also purchased in the joint name of her daughter-in-law. Moreover, the entire sale consideration received by the assessee form the sale of property was received through bank and Smt. Purabi Devi has undisputedly not invested any amount towards making payment of sale proceeds of the new property. Ratio in both cases CIT vs. Ravinder Kumar Arora (2011 (9) TMI 343 - DELHI HIGH COURT ); and (ii) CIT vs. Kamal Wahal (2013 (1) TMI 401 - DELHI HIGH COURT) says that, “when new residential property has been purchased by the assessee in joint names of assessee and his close relative by investing the entire amount of long term capital gain, the assessee is entitled for full exemption u/s 54F of the Act.” - Decided against the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e are : during the reopening proceedings under section 147/148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, assessee filed her revised return on 26.12.2014 in compliance to the notice u/s 148 of the Act. Thereafter notice u/s 142 (1) of the Act along with questionnaire was served upon the assessee. Assessing Officer noticed during assessment proceedings that the assessee has sold residential property for a consideration of ₹ 8,50,00,000/- having 2/3rd share in the same. AO, by invoking the provisions contained u/s 50-C of the Act, computed the long term capital gain as under :- Sl.No. Particulars As per assessee As per Department 1. Sale consideration of both the properties Rs.8,50,00,000 Rs.8,71,88,000 2. 2/3 rd Share of the assessee Rs.5,66,61,000 Rs.5,81,25,333 3. Indexed cost of acquisition Rs.48,56,403 Rs.48,56,403 4. Long term capi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee on the renovation of the house property. The ld. AR for the assessee contended that such bills and vouchers were not available because the work was procured from the daily wagers completed within three months. However, the ld. DR relied upon the order of the AO in this regard. We are of the considered view that when the AO got satisfied regarding renovation of the house carried out by the assessee during the year under assessment to the tune of ₹ 13,00,000/- on the basis of bills and vouchers produced by the assessee, contention of the assessee that the amount of ₹ 1,88,820/- was spent by way of labour charges given to the daily wagers who have worked for a period of three months is sustainable. One cannot be expected to procure the vouchers for making payments to the daily wagers who even keeps on changing as per availability in the labour market. So, we find no illegality or perversity in the findings returned by the CIT (A). This ground is determined against the revenue. GROUND NO.2 9. Ld. CIT (A) deleted the addition of ₹ 1,87,33,472/- made by the AO on the ground that the assessee purchased the property in the joint name by returning the following fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Purabi Dutt had contributed any amount towards the purchase of the property at Kolkata. That being the case there is no reason to deny the assessee the benefit of deduction under section 54, to the extent of ₹ 1,87,33,472/- only on account of the fact that the assessee purchased the property in a joint name. The addition made in this regard is therefore deleted and the assessee is to be allowed the entire amount invested by her as deduction u/s 54. 10. Ld. AR for the assessee contended that since the assessee has reinvested the sale proceeds of the property sold by her during FY 2012-13 for a sale consideration of ₹ 8,50,00,000/- out of which assessee s share comes to ₹ 5,81,19,521/- having capital gain of ₹ 1,06,07,501/- and the joint owner of the property, namely, Smt. Purabi Devi has not invested anything, the exemption u/s 54 of the Act cannot be denied. However, on the other hand, ld. DR relied upon the order passed by the AO. 11. Perusal of the findings returned by ld. CIT (A) goes to prove that he has thrashed the matter threadbare by perusing the bank account maintained with State Bank of India vide which the entire reinvestment in purchasing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
