9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 445X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y Lakshmi (Wife) and Sri Mukkamala Amar Rao (Son). As per said sale deed Flat No. 102 is registered under the name of assessee(self) and remaining two flats in the name of son and wife. As in the case of Bhagwan Swroop Pathak [ 2020 (7) TMI 656 - ITAT DELHI ] we find that similar issue was for consideration regarding the deduction u/s. 54F of the Act for the investments made in purchase of property in the name of assessee s son. The Co-ordinate Bench, Delhi relied on the judgment of the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kamal Vahal [ 2013 (1) TMI 401 - DELHI HIGH COURT ] wherein the assessee purchased new house in the name of his wife and the Hon ble High Court held that deduction u/s. 54 is valid. Respectfully following th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ind that the bills placed at page-17 of the P.B is in the name of Kanishk Holdings dt.07-08-2015 for the renovation expenses - But this claim of the assessee remains in doubt because the flats in question has been purchased through sale deed executed on 17-10-2015 and there is no mention about any prior agreement and that include by the assessee and family members with the seller of the property and also the details of payment appearing in the back side of each copy of bills for renovation includes various payments made in cash. No evidence filed by the assessee to demonstrate the source of such expenditure. Under these given facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that this issue of claim of deduction u/s. 54F needs to be r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant purchased 3 flats (constituting one unit) in name of his wife, son and himself. Ld. CIT(A) allowed deduction to part of investment made in name of assessee and disallowed the deduction claimed in name of wife and son. This action of Ld CIT(A) was illegal and unjustified. Deduction should be allowed for property purchased in name of wife and son constituting as I single residential unit. As such, the addition confirmed is fit to be deleted. 2. For that Ld. CIT(A) was not justified not allowing deduction claimed U/s 54F amounting to Rs.42,11,500/-claimed as cost of improvement on purchase of new flats. The deduction claimed is allowable as per the provisions of law U/s 54 and no disallowance is called for. All flats were inter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ife and son the deduction u/s. 54F was denied and also for want of necessary details the deduction for repairing and renovation cost at Rs.42,11,500/- was also rejected. Income assessed at Rs.3,10,30,490/-.. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and filed detailed submissions and also submitted that Flat Nos. 101, 102 and 103 were duly registered through a single registered deed. However, assessee again failed to get any relief before the ld. CIT(A) on both the issues. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee is now in appeal before this Tribunal. 6. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee vehemently argued referring to the written submissions filed before the ld. CIT(A) and also referred to the paper book dt. 20-08-20 ru ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... only dispute before us is that whether the sale consideration received by a person from sale of capital asset if applied in the name of his wife or son for purchasing/constructing residential house whether the assessee can claim deduction u/s. 54F or 54 of the Act?. 11. From going through the decision(s) relied on by the ld. Counsel for the assessee in the case of in the case of Bhagwan Swroop Pathak (supra), we find that similar issue was for consideration regarding the deduction u/s. 54F of the Act for the investments made in purchase of property in the name of assessee s son. The Co-ordinate Bench, Delhi relied on the judgment of the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kamal Vahal 351 ITR 4, wherein the assessee purch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d no. 2 is concerned, it relates to deduction at Rs.42,11,500/- claimed by the assessee u/s. 54F of the Act towards cost of improvement of purchase of new flats. We notice that before the ld.AO assessee failed to file any evidence for the said expenditure of Rs.42,11,500/-. Even before the ld. CIT(A) the assessee failed to satisfy by filing necessary documentary evidence for the claim of expenditure for furnishing and renovation of the house. Before us the assessee filed bills for furnishing and renovation, copies of which placed at pages 17-19 of the P.B. The assessee certified in the paper book that the bills for furnishing and renovation have been filed before the authorities below. But the finding of the ld.CIT(A) is contrary. Also on p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
