Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (8) TMI 290 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAMExemption u/sec. 54F - assessee invested in the plot belonging to her husband - Investment made by spouse - assessee has sold certain property and sale proceeds received, has invested in construction of the plot belonging to her husband - AO denied the claim of the assessee on the ground that she has not constructed the house within the stipulated period of 03 years and investment made by her is not in her name and is in the name of her husband - denied the claim of the assessee only on the ground that sale proceeds ought to have been invested in her name instead of her husband name - HELD THAT:- In this case, we find that the assessee has sold certain land and received sale proceeds and invested in construction of a house in plot belonging to the husband. It is a fact that the assessee and her husband are living together and also a fact that sale proceeds received by the assessee are used for construction of the house. AO denied the claim of the assessee only on the ground that sale proceeds ought to have been invested in her name instead of her husband name. By considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the benefit u/sec. 54F cannot be denied to the assessee simply because sale proceeds invested in a plot belonging to her husband. Section 54F is being a beneficial provision. As per the judgments of various High Courts and the tribunals where investment is made by the spouse, benefit has been allowed by construing the definition of ‘assessee’ liberally. In the present case, the sale proceeds has been invested in the plot belonging to the assessee’s husband, therefore, the case law relied on by the ld. CIT(A) has no application to the facts of the present case. Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and also by following the judgments of M/S. B. SURENDRA CHOWDARY, [2017 (8) TMI 1563 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] , SHRI KAMAL WAHAL [2013 (1) TMI 401 - DELHI HIGH COURT] and V. NATARAJAN. [2006 (2) TMI 136 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] and also N. RAM KUMAR [2012 (10) TMI 145 - ITAT HYDERABAD] we are of the opinion that the assessee is entitled for deduction u/sec. 54F of the Act. Thus, these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed.
|