9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 646X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the date of transfer of the original asset . Though ld AR has been vehement in his argument that the meaning of the term on the date of transfer should be considered as the end of the specified date of transfer, we are unable to accede to the arguments because the date of transfer starts at 00 hours and ends at 23.59 hours. On the date means any time during the date and at the beginning of the date of intended transfer of the original asset, the assessee did own more than one residential house. This being so, Assessing Officer and ld CIT(A) is right in denying the assessee the benefit of exemption u/s. 54F of the Act. It must be mentioned here that the interpretation brought out by ld AR itself lead to substantial question of law as to what exactly is the interpretation of the term on the date of transfer . The interpretation given by ld AR though plausible is not acceptable to this Tribunal. Appeal of the assessee stands dismissed. - Shri George Mathan, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Shri S.K. Agrawalla, CA For the Revenue : Shri S.C. Mohanty, Sr DR ORDER This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lows: 4.3 With this background, we may proceed to apply the law to the issue at hand. We find no provision in law for the assessee to continue to be regarded as the owner or even a part owner of the property (the Sion residential flat) gifted by her to her husband on 03.10.2008. Even if the same is for the purpose of enabling availing benefit under section 54F, we cannot by any score treat as not valid in the eyes of law. The law does not oblige a person to pay maximum taxes or authorize disregarding a lawful transaction if the same has the effect of reducing his tax liability. The transfer is by no means sham or bogus, notwithstanding that the assessee would continue to reside with her family, including her husband, in the said house, i.e., both before and after its gift to her husband. That is, true, the assessee, along with her family, including her husband, continues to reside in the Gope Niwas Bldg., both before and after the gift, so that the same has no purpose apart from the change of the ownership, which is to be reckoned as on the date of the transfer (of the original asset, i.e., 06.10.2008). Whether, therefore, the change of the ownership was effected a few days or, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd on redemption of the mutual fund, it has been deposited in the capital gain account scheme. It was also noticed that the assessee on sale of original assets has deposited the proceeds in his bank account. From there, he deposited the money temporarily with mutual funds and before the due date of deposit in Capital Gain Scheme, encashed the mutual funds and deposited the amount in Capital Gain Scheme as required by the relevant provisions of the Act. On vigilant and careful consideration of contention of the Assessing Officer as well as conclusion of the CIT(A) as noted above, we are of the view that the Assessing Officer rejected the claim of the assessee u/s 54 of the Act without any justified reason and on incorrect premise which was rightly allowed by the CIT(A) after properly appreciating and considering the facts and circumstances of the case in the light of explanation of the I.T.A. No. 4187/Del/2012 Assessment Year: 2009-10 15 assessee. We are unable to see any infirmity or any other valid reason to interfere with the order of the ld. CIT(A) and uphold the same. Accordingly, ground no. 2 of the revenue is also dismissed. It was the submission that as the assessee did ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d or artificial schemes. In the present case, the assessee was engaged in the artificial transfer of one house by way of gift deed just prior to the effective date. Further, under sections 23 and 24 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, when the object is to defeat any provisions of law, and when consideration is of such nature that, if permitted, it would defeat the provisions of any law, the contract will be void. In the present case, per se gift deed was not executed on account of natural love and affection but was executed by the assessee to artificially avail the deduction u/s 54F of the Income Tax Act 1961. It was the submission that the facts clearly showed that the assessee owned more than one residential house as on the date of transfer of the asset and consequently, the action of the Assessing Officer in denying exemption u/s. 54F is liable to be upheld. 5. I have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the facts in the present case clearly show that the basic issue to be decided is whether as on 27.12.2014, the assessee own more than one residential house or not?. It is an admitted fact that the assessee has gifted residential house being Plot No.36B, Bharat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
