9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 282X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uld become owner of property through registration as Section speaks of purchase and registration of document was not imperative. The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Mysore Minerals Limited Vs CIT [ 1999 (9) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT] held that the term own , ownership , owned are generic and relative terms. They have a wide and also a narrow connotation. The meaning would depend upon the context in which the terms are used. The term owned as occurring in Section 32(1) must be assigned a wider meaning. Anyone in possession of a property in his own title exercising such dominion over the property as would enable others being excluded therefrom and having right to use and occupy the property and/or to enjoy its usufructs in his own right would be owner of the building though a formal deed of title may not have been executed and registered as contemplated under Transfer of property Act. Thus in there is no impediment in claiming deduction u/s 54F on investment of capital gain in the residential house, which is in the name of assessee s husband. Hence, we direct the AO to allow deduction u/s 54F of the Act claimed by the assessee. In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctioned in the name of her husband. The assessee filed her reply, contents of reply are extracted on page No. 8 to 13 of assessment order. In the reply, the assessee stated that out of the sale proceed of her ancestral property, the assessee earned long term capital gain of Rs. 10.49 crores, out of which, the assessee has invested Rs. 9.61 crores for a construction of a residential house with her husband for construction of a residential property. The plot of on which construction of residential house is made, is in the name of her husband. The approval plan was sanctioned by the Surat Municipal Corporation (SMC) in the name of her husband. Ownership is also vested with her husband. She made a mutual understanding for bearing part of construction cost with her husband. The assessee by referring the provisions of Section 54F of the Act, stated that it could be appreciated that there is no restriction in Section 54F that assessee should construct a residential house on a plot of land owned by herself only. To support her submission, the assessee also relied on the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Anr. Vs P.R. Sheshadri 329 ITR 377 (Kar) wherein similar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the assessee submits that in fact the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee is directly covered by the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in CIT Anr. Vs P.R. Sheshadri (supra) and PCIT Vs. Vaidya Panalal Manilal HUF (supra). The ld. AR of the assessee submits that the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in CIT Anr. Vs P.R. Sheshadri (supra), almost similar only with the difference in the said case, the capital gain was earned by the husband of that assessee. However, in the present case, the capital gain is earned by the wife and utilized for the construction of residential house which is in the name of her husband. The lower authorities have not at all disputed the construction of residential house. To support his submission, the ld. AR of the assessee also relied on the following decisions: CIT ANR vs. P.R. Sheshadri [329 ITR 0377]. Chandrakant S. Choksi HUF vs. ACIT [41 CCH 0619(Mum.)(Trib.)]. DIT, International Taxation Vs Mrs Jennifer Bhide [349 ITR 0080 (Kar)]. CIT Vs. V. Natarajan [287 ITR 0271 (Mad)]. CIT Vs. Ravinder Kumar Arora [342 ITR 0038 (Del)]. Antony P Kurian Vs. ACIT [442 ITR 0038 (Kar)]. Mahadev Balai Vs. ITO [ITA No 333/JP/2016], PCIT vs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l house, she would not be disentitled to claim benefit of exemption under Section 54. 7. Hon ble Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. Ravinder Kumar Arora (supra) while referring the decision of Hon ble Apex Court in CIT Vs. Poddar Cement (P) Ltd. 226 ITR 625 held that Supreme Court in the said case, has accepted the theory of constructive ownership. It was held that Section 54F mandates that the house should be purchased by the assessee and it does not stipulate that house should be purchased in the name of assessee only. Where the house was purchased by assessee in his name and wife s name was also included additionally. Such inclusion of name of wife for a peculiar factual reason should not stand in the way of deduction legitimately occurring to the assessee. Objective of the Section 54F and like provision such as Section 54 is to provide impetus to the house construction and so long as the purpose of house construction is achieved, such hyper technicality should not impede the way of deduction which the Legislature has allowed. Purposive construction is to be preferred as against the literal construction, more so when even literal construction also does not say that the house should be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
