9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 299X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... yet the ratio would be applicable in the instant case also. Assessee had invested the entire Long Term Capital Gains in the purchase of residential property within the stipulated time, while the AO had restricted the exemption to 34 % of the Long Term Capital Gains without acknowledging the fact that the assessee had invested the entire Long Term Capital Gains in the purchase of residential property. We have gone through the decision of the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court, reproduced in the impugned order, and find that it had allowed exemption of capital gains, to the extent of the sale consideration invested by the assessee in the new asset, denying the exemption to the extent invested by his wife, on noting the fact that the investments in the new property had been made both by the assessee and his wife. The Hon ble High Court held that the assessee would be entitled to the benefit of exemption u/s 54 B only on the amount invested by him after the sale of his original property. Drawing parity from the same, the Ld. CIT(A), we find, has in the present case, noted the fact that the assessee has invested her entire sale consideration in the new property and, therefore, is entitl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s order is not perverse and in contravention of jurisdictions! High Court decision in the case of CIT, Faridabad Vs. Sh. Dinesh Verma in ITA No. 381/2014 wherein it was held that the assessee is not entitled to the benefit of deduction u/s 54 if the subsequent property is purchased by a person other than the assessee including a close relative such as a wife or child. (v) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A)'s order is not perverse and in contravention of jurisdictional division bench decision in the case of Jai Narayaii Vs Income Tax Officer, [2008] 306 ITR 335 (P&H) wherein it was held that a reading of section 54B of the Act nowhere suggests that legislature intended to advance the benefit of the said section to an assessee who purchased the agriculture land in the name of a third person. (vi) It is prayed that the order of Ld. CIT(A) be set aside and that of the Assessing officer may be restored. (vii) The appellant craves leave to add or amend any grounds of appeal before the appeal is heard or is disposed off." 3. Referring to the same he contended that primarily the contention of the Revenue was that the CIT(A)'s order was n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... she purchased the property conjointly with her daughter and her son in law to avoid any litigation subsequent to her death. In order to corroborate her contention that nothing contained in section 54 of the Act precludes assessee from investing Capital Gains in property conjointly, the assessee placed reliance on judicial pronouncements of various High Courts wherein the respective courts have invariably held that it is not mandatory that the investment should exclusively be-made by assessee in his own name to claim deduction u/s 54 of the Act. It is pertinent to mention that similar issue of claim of exemption u/s 54B was before Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in case of Dinesh Verma Vs. CIT in ITA No.381 of 2014. In the said case, the assessee sold his agricultural land for ₹ 60 lakhs and subsequently purchased another agricultural land for ₹ 61.60 lakhs in which he invested a sum of ₹ 44.76 lakhs received on account of sale of his agricultural land. Remaining consideration of ₹ 16.84 lakhs was paid by his wife. The High Court in the said case dealt with two substantial questions of law, viz. 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proceeded on the basis that his wife invested the amount of ₹ 16,84,700/- herself. The order of the Tribunal to this extent is, therefore, overruled. It is declared that respondent shall be entitled to the benefit of Section 54B on the basis that he invested only a sum of ₹ 44,76,000/- in the agricultural property purchased by him after the sale of the agricultural property earlier owned by him. Even the additional question No. 7 raised by us in our order dated 02.03.2015 is answered in favour of the appellant/department. Though the case at hand pertains to that of claim of exemption u/s 54 of the Act on LTCG but the ratio of the case mentioned supra would be applicable in the instant case also. In the instant case it is not disputed that the assessee had not invested the LTCG in purchase of residential property within stipulated time. The AO had restricted the claim of exemption u/s 54 merely on the basis that the assessee's share in the new property was 34% without acknowledging the fact that the assessee had invested the entire LTCG in purchase of residential property. The plain reading of provisions of section 54 of the Act indicates that in order to clai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ind that it had allowed exemption of capital gains, to the extent of the sale consideration invested by the assessee in the new asset, denying the exemption to the extent invested by his wife, on noting the fact that the investments in the new property had been made both by the assessee and his wife. The Hon'ble High Court held that the assessee would be entitled to the benefit of exemption u/s 54 B only on the amount invested by him after the sale of his original property. Drawing parity from the same, the Ld. CIT(A), we find, has in the present case, noted the fact that the assessee has invested her entire sale consideration in the new property and, therefore, is entitled to exemption of the entire amount of Long Term Capital Gains. We do not find any infirmity in the same. Moreover, the Ld. DR has neither been unable to controvert the facts of the present case as noted by the Ld.CIT(A) nor has pointed out how the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court was applicable against the assessee in the facts of the present case. 7. In view of the same, we do not find any reason to interfere in the order of the Ld. CIT(A). All the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue are a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
