9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 85X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issue of deduction u/s 54F of the Act in accordance with the law, without being influenced by the observations made by the learned Principal CIT in the impugned revision order - Appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. - ITA No.2697/Bang/2017 - - - Dated:- 15-2-2019 - SHRI N. V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI B. R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Assessee : Shri.S. Ramasubramanyam, CA For The Revenue : Shri. Pradeep Kumar, CIT ORDER Per B. R. Baskaran, Accountant Member The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the revision order dated 27.07.2017 passed by learned Principal CIT, Bangalore-7, for Assessment Year 2012-13. In this appeal, the assessee is challenging the validity of revi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the residential property located at Berlie Street, Bangalore, actually belonged to her husband and her name was included in the purchase deed on sentimental reasons, i.e., in order to meet the requirements of Vaastu and also for the purpose of availing loan at concessional rates. It was clarified that the husband of the assessee has purchased the above said residential property by selling a site during the financial year 2006- 07, i.e., the entire purchase cost was financed by her husband. It was further submitted that, subsequently when the said residential property was sold during the financial year 2012-13, the capital gain arising there from was offered by her husband. Accordingly, it was contended that the residential property locate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner of the residential property located at Berlie Street, Bangalore, as she has only lent her name on sentimental reasons while purchasing the same. On the contrary, the learned DR submitted that the assessee herself had furnished the details of the properties owned by her to the AO and in that letter she has nowhere mentioned that she is not the owner of the property. Further the learned DR submitted that the AO has failed to examine the claim for deduction under section 54F of the Act during th course of assessment proceedings as required by the law. Accordingly, the learned DR submitted that the revision order passed by the learned CIT does not call for any interference. 6. Having considered the rival submissions, we are of the view t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
