9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 635X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessed in the hands of the assessee. See V. NATARAJAN. [ 2006 (2) TMI 136 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] , SHRI GURNAM SINGH [ 2008 (4) TMI 28 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] AND RAVINDER KUMAR ARORA [ 2011 (9) TMI 343 - DELHI HIGH COURT] - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 1863/Hyd/2019 - - - Dated:- 4-2-2021 - A. Mohan Alankamony, Member (A) For the Appellant : V. Siva Kumar For the Respondents : N. Srikanth, DR ORDER A. Mohan Alankamony, Member (A) This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-10, Hyderabad in appeal No. 0011/CIT(A)-10/2016-17, dated 14/08/2019 passed U/s. 143 r.w.s 147 and U/s. 250(6) of the Act for the AY: 2008-09. 2. The assessee has raised three grounds in her ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he aforesaid reasons it was submitted that the assessee had refrained from filing her return of income. The assessee also relied on certain decisions of the Higher Judiciary to drive her point with respect to her claim of exemption U/s. 54 of the Act. However, the Ld. AO distinguishing those cases from the case of the assessee held that, since the assessee had not purchased the house in her own name, she will not be entitled to claim the benefit of exemption U/s. 54 of the Act. Accordingly, the ld. AO computed the taxable LTCG of the assessee at ₹ 34,25,280/-. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the order of the ld. AO by agreeing with his view. 4. At the outset, the Ld. AR submitted before us that the issue is squarely covered in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Assessing Officer initiated proceedings against the assessee under section 158BD of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the basis of an agreement seized during a search conducted in the business premises of SP which revealed that the assessee had sold agricultural land to one S and obtained earnest money. In the assessment of income the assessee claimed deduction under section 54B of the Act in respect of the agricultural land purchased by him along with his son out of the sale proceeds of the agricultural land. The Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction on the ground that the land was registered in the name of the assessee's son. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the deduction and the Tribunal confirmed the order of the Commiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... involved Whether for claiming deduction of capital gains under section 54F, the new residential house needs to be purchased by the assessee in his own name? HELD In CIT v. Ravinder Kumar Arora [2012] 342 ITR 38/[2011] 203 Taxman 289/15 taxmann.com 307 (Delhi), it was held that where the entire purchase consideration was paid only by the assessee and not a single penny was contributed by any other person, preferring a purposive construction against a literal construction, more so when even applying the literal construction, there is nothing in section 54F to show that the house should be purchased in the name of the assessee only. Section 54F in terms does not require that the new residential property shall be purchased in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he exemption claimed under section 54F as against total claim made by the assessee. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the assessee's appeal. On second appeal, the Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to benefit of section 54F with reference to the total investment. On the revenue's appeal to the High Court: HELD Plain reading of section 54F indicates that in order to get benefit of this section, the assessee should, inter alia, 'purchase' a house. As per the revenue, this house has to be purchased in the name of the assessee only and benefit is not given if it is purchased by the assessee jointly with his wife.[Para 7] At the outset, important factual findings recorded by the Tribunal in this c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cepted, it would be a derogatory step.[Para 9] Even when one look into the matter from another angle, facts remain that the assessee is the actual and constructive owner of the house. In CIT v. Podar Cement (P) Ltd. [1997] 226 ITR 625/92 Taxman 541 (SC), the Supreme Court has also accepted the theory of constructive ownership. Moreover, section 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 additionally. Such inclusion of the name of the wife for the above-stated peculiar factual reason should not stand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
