Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (12) TMI 1254 - ITAT AHMEDABADExemption u/s 54F for the investment made in the residential bungalow - builder has delayed the construction - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, the property was finally acquired by the assessee as evident from the copy of the sale deed which is available on record. Now the question arises whether the assessee can be denied the benefit of the provisions of section 54F of the Act in a situation where the builder has delayed the construction. It is also not in dispute that the payment for the purchase of the property was made well within the time specified under section 54F of the Act. In our considered view, in a situation as in the case on hand the assessee cannot be denied the benefit of exemption merely on the ground that the construction was not completed within the time. In this regard we find support and guidance from the judgment of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT versus Sambandam Udaykumar [2012 (3) TMI 80 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] Revenue in the case of the co-owner as discussed above has accepted the claim made by the assessee in the assessment framed under section 147 read with section 143(3) of the Act. The courts have held that once the claim in the case of the co-owner has been accepted then such claim/benefit cannot be denied in the case of other coowner. We hold that the impugned transaction cannot be treated as colourable device adopted by the assessee to escape from the income tax liability. Accordingly we are of the opinion that the principles laid down in the case of McDowells [1985 (4) TMI 64 - SUPREME COURT] cannot be applied in the case on hand. In view of the above, the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed. Addition on account of cash deposited in the bank - HELD THAT:- Cash withdrawal from the bank has not been doubted by the authorities below. Similarly nothing has been brought on records suggesting that the cash withdrawn from the bank has been utilized for some other purposes other than the deposit of cash as alleged by the authorities below. The onus was of the Revenue to reject the contention of the assessee based on cogent reasons that the cash was not deposited out of the cash withdrawal from the bank. But the Revenue failed to do so. Thus in the absence of any documentary evidence, we can safely presume that the cash withdrawn from the bank was available with the assessee which was subsequently deposited with the bank. Therefore, we cannot treat the same as undisclosed income of the assessee. We are of the opinion that there cannot be any addition on account of deposit of cash in the saving bank account of the assessee by treating the same as undisclosed income. Hence the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed
|