9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 1420X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3 (1) TMI 401 - DELHI HIGH COURT] and CIT vs. Ravinder Kumar Arora [ 2011 (9) TMI 343 - DELHI HIGH COURT] which has been dealt in the case of CIT vs. Kamal Wahal (supra) and decision of the Hon ble Punjab Haryana High Court, in the case of CIT vs.Gurnam Singh [ 2008 (4) TMI 28 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] In view of the above discussion, the ld. CIT(A) is not justified in not allowing the claim of the assessee. Accordingly, the order of the ld. CIT(A) is reversed and the AO is directed to allow the claim of the assessee. Thus, the sole ground taken by the assessee is allowed. - I.T.A. No. 514(Asr)/2014 - - - Dated:- 26-3-2015 - Sh. A.D. Jain, Judicial Member And Sh. B.P. Jain, Accountant Member For the Appellant : S/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar 1996-97 for an amount of Rs.98,975/-. Thus, the indexed cost of acquisition of this plot was Rs.1,88,863/- which when reduced from the cost of consideration gave rise to long term capital gain of Rs.30,11,137/-. To claim exemption from the payment of capital gains tax the assessment deposited an amount of Rs.24,00,000/- on 30.07.2009 in the Capital Gains account with State Bank of India, Hari Market, Jammu. Another amount of Rs.8,00,000/- was claimed to have been invested for acquiring a new residential house by the assessee and accordingly, the entire capital gains was claimed exempt u/s 54F of the I.T. Act, 1961. In order verify the claim of the assessee, it was asked to furnished documentary evidence with regard to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... there is no mention u/s 54 of the Act that new residential house should be purchased in the name of the assessee only. It merely says that the assessee should purchase/construct a residential house. The assessee has not purchased the new residential house in the name of a stranger or somebody who is unconnected with. But the assessee has purchased or constructed the house in the name of her husband.. The Ld. CIT(A) has relied upon the decision in the case of Jai Narayan vs ITO reported in 306 ITR 351 (P H), which in fact has been distinguished by the same court in the case of CIT vs.Gurnam Singh reported in (2010) 227 ITR 278 (P H). The Ld. CIT(A) also relied upon the decision of Hon ble Mumbai High Court, in the case of Prakash vs. Income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 54F of the Act, though the same has been distinguished by the Hon ble Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gurnam Singh (supra), where the facts of the case and decision is reproduced hereinbelow: We have heard the counsel for the Revenue and gone through the aforesaid impugned order. In our opinion, from the impugned order, no substantial question of law is arising for consideration of this Court as the Tribunal while recording a pure finding of fact has dismissed the appeal of the Revenue. Undisputedly, in this case the assessee had sold the agricultural land which was being used by him for agricultural purpose. Out of sale proceeds of the said sale, the assessee has purchased other piece of land (land in question) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order, agreed with the decision of the CIT(Appeals) and in doing so followed the judgment of the Madras and Andhra Pradesh High Courts cited supra and also another judgment of the Karnataka High Court in Director of Income tax, International Taxation, Bangalore : (2011) 203 Taxman 208. It is also noted the Judgment of the Bombay High Court in Parkash vs. ITO: (2008) 173 Taxman 311 in which a contrary view was taken but preferred the view taken by the Madras and Karnataka High Courts adopting the rule laid down by the Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Vegetable Products Ltd: 88 ITR 192 which says that if a statutory provision is capable of more than one view, then the view which favours the tax payer should be preferred. The Tribunal also observed th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8. This Court in the decision cited alone also noticed the judgment of the Madras High Court (supra) and agreed with the same, observing that though the Madras case was decided in relation to Section 54 of the Act, that Section was in pari material with Section 54F. The judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gurnam Singh: (2014) 327 ITR 278 in which the same view was taken with reference to Section 54F was also noticed by this Court. 9. It thus appears to us that the predominant judicial view, including that of this Court, is that for the purposes of Section 54F, the new residential house need not be purchased by the assessee in his own name nor is it necessary that it should be purchased exclusively ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
