Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2022 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (7) TMI 535 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - deduction u/s 54F - Whether investment and income relating to properties are duly disclosed? - Revenue has failed to demonstrate that the assessee's share in the newly purchased property for which deduction u/s 54F had been claimed was to the tune of 33% - HELD THAT:- The mere fact that his wife's name is also appended to therein alongwith his name and that of his son who as per record has obtained a housing loan for the stated property, we find that these facts do not erode the claim of exemption of the assessee u/s 54. The fact that this entire amount has been invested in the property is not disputed by the Revenue. We have also seen that it has not been upset by the ld. PCIT in the order. All relevant documents are available on record. What enquiry/investigation the AO should have done in the first round, we find has been left unaddressed. In the face of the consistent stand of the assessee that the entire Long Term Capital Gain from the sale of the property has been applied to the new property. Documents substantiating this claim are available on record and have not been upset. The revisionary power u/s 263 of the Act cannot be allowed to be exercised in a casual arbitrary manner. It is incumbent upon the ld. PCIT to point out the error in the order and that too such an error which can be said to be prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Revenue has dismally failed on this count. Accordingly, in the said factual background where we find no evidence for supporting the conclusion that only 1/3rd share belonged to the assessee. The exercise of power by the PCIT in these peculiar facts cannot be upheld. The case laws relied upon by the ld. PCIT in the order and the ld. CIT-DR including the one cited by the AR, accordingly, we hold do not warrant any discussion. At the very threshold itself, we have seen that the issue being purely factual, presumptions cannot be allowed to prevail and taint the facts on record. Since much reliance for the Revenue has been placed upon the decision in the case of Kamal Kant Kamboj [2017 (8) TMI 285 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] we find on a careful reading of the same and hold that it does not have any applicability to the facts of the present case. In the facts of the said decision which was rendered by the jurisdictional High Court, the admitted fact available on record was that the assessee had invested in the property exclusively in the name of his wife. As a result thereof, the exemption for Long Term Capital Gain u/s 54B was held to be not allowable as the investment had not been made in the name of the assessee. In the facts of the present case, the new purchase has been made in the name of the assessee but funds largely have flown from the assessee and the said fact is not upset. The mere fact that names of the wife and son also is included, we hold has no relevance for determining in the peculiar facts the issue at hand. In the facts of the present case, the suspicions entertained by the PCIT have not been translated into facts despite the fact that the entire documents were available. Accordingly, on a consideration of facts and circumstances and position of law, we find that the order deserves to be quashed. - Decided in favour of assessee.
|