9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 1194X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . - Decided in favor of assessee. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ather towards such investment disallowed 50% claim of the assessee and gave exemption u/s.54 of the Act of ₹ 32,26,145/- towards the share of the assessee in the residential house which was ultimately affirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) against which the instant appeal has come up before us. 3. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the time of hearing of the matter submitted before us that the entire amount of ₹ 65,00,000/- was paid by the assessee to the vendor through cheques details whereof was duly submitted to the AO during the assessment proceeding. He further submitted that the property was purchased jointly with the father of assessee in order to retain ownership or smooth running of ownership as an abundant caution. The entire pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nment itself permitting joint ownership with wife. If the view of the AO or the contention of the Revenue is accepted, it would be a derogatory step. 10. Even when we look into the matter from another angle, facts remain that the assessee is the actual and constructive owner of the house. In CIT vs. Podar Cements (P) Ltd. & Etc. (1997) 141 CTR (SC) 67 : (1997) 226 ITR 625 (SC), the Supreme Court has also accepted the theory of constructive ownership. Moreover, s. 54F mandates that the house should be purchased by the assessee and it does not stipulate that the house should be purchased in the name of the assessee only. Here is a case where the house was purchased by the assessee and that too in his name and wife's name was also included ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourts giving benefit of s. 54F(1) of the Act when the house of the assessee is purchased jointly with his wife. In the case of CIT vs. V. Natarajan (2006) 203 CTR (Mad) 37 : (2007) 287 ITR 271 (Mad) though this case was decided in relation to s. 54 of the Act, the said section is pari materia of s. 54F(1) of the Act. Likewise, the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gurnam Singh (2008) 218 CTR (P&H) 674 : (2008) 6 DTR (P&H) 83 : (2010) 327 ITR 278 (P&H) took the same view while discussing the provisions of s. 54 of the Act which is again pari materia of s. 54F(1) of the Act. 12. We, thus, answer the question in favour of the assessee and dismiss this appeal with cost quantified @ ₹ 10,000." 5.1. We find that the ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
