9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 1085X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar 2013-14 admitting an income of Rs..1,24,41,730/- which includes capital gain of Rs..98,07,591/-. The assessee along with five others had sold a property situated at Arcot Road, Chennai on 27.06.2012 for a consideration of Rs..30,76,00,000/-. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer found that the guideline value of the said property was at Rs..33,22,08,000/- as per the registered sale deed. Further, the assessee has claimed exemption to the tune of Rs..71,39,910/- under section 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ["Act" in short]. However, the Assessing Officer noticed from the statement of income that the assessee owned more than one house and hence he is not eligible for claiming exemption. Since, there were discrepancies in respect of capital ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x Rules, 1962 and wrongly allowed the claim of deduction of Rs..3,45,09,522/- under section 54F of the Act. 4. On the other hand, the ld. Counsel for the assessee supported the order passed by the ld. CIT(A). 5. We have heard both the sides, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. In the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has noted that the assessee owns, Four residential houses-one at Joshier Street, Chennai, second at Arasarkulam, Aranthangi, Third at Shenoy Nagar, Chennai (1/3° Share) and the fourth at No.243/14 Gangadarapuram, Aranthangi. Further the field enquiry by the Inspector revealed that the assessee owns a residential property consisting of 8 houses at Ezhil Nagar, I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i, for which property tax receipts issued by Aranthangi Municipality were produced before the ld. CIT(A) and contended that the assessee had only admitted land rent, and as such contention of AO that this building was owned by assessee is factually incorrect. The assessee has also produced deed of confirmation of oral gift dated 30.04.2012 before the ld. CIT(A). After considering the above details and additional evidences produced before the ld. CIT(A), the ld. CIT(A) has observed and held as under: "11. AR has also furnished documents to registration of house in the name of the wife, payment of municipal taxes etc. 12. The only reason for denial of 54F benefit seems to be AO's understanding that assessee had more than one residenti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ift and transfers from husband to wife is allowed, it is even expected, and it is only to prevent benefit of base (non taxable) that section 64 has been formed. 15. Now the question is whether HIBA gift is real and is to be accepted as such and if this is done, will the assessee get the benefit of deduction under section 54F? Too much probing and inquiry is not mandated in personal Laws of communities and where the appellant has gone ahead with the gift in written form, even beyond the requirement of oral gift, it appears to be genuine and must be respected over and above the hyper technical attitude of the AO. Respectfully following the decisions cited supra and after considering the facts of the case, I am inclined to accept the argumen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
