9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (8) TMI 264X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the other located at the 1st & 2nd floor. The A.O. further noted that both the houses were purchased along with Smt. Manisha V. Ginde, wife of the assessee. The A.O. concluded that as the assessee has purchased two row houses and that to in the joint name along with his wife and as per the provisions of section 54F, the exemption is available in respect of one residential house and that to in the name of the individual. The assessee has violated both the conditions, therefore, exemption u/s.54F is not available to him. Accordingly, the A.O. denied the exemption as claimed by the assessee. The assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) 3. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee submitted that the allegation of the AO that assessee has purchased two houses is incorrect, as, the assessee has purchased only one row house with two separate deeds and the dwelling so purchased has only one entrance and is occupied by only one family. To support his contention, the assessee filed the following documents:- i. Account of the assessee in the account of the builder. ii. Copies of civil contractor's bill iii. Copy of ration card. iv. Copy of telephone bill. v. Copy of electricity ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the premises, the flats were occupied by two different tenants is not the ground to hold that the apartment is not a one residential unit. the fact that the assessee could have purchased both the flats in one single sale deed or could have narrated the purchase of two premises as one unit in the sale deed is not the ground to hold that the assessee had no intention to purchase the two flats as one unit." 6. The learned DR supported the order of the lower authorities. 7. We have heard the rival parties and carefully perused the orders of the lower authorities. The facts in dispute have given rise to two questions. (i) whether on facts, the assessee has purchased one residential unit entitling him for exemption u/s.54F and ; (ii) whether the purchase of the residential unit jointly with wife entitles the assessee for the exemption u/s.54F. So far as the first question is concerned, we find that from the agreements of purchase of house, the assessee has purchased House 16A for a consideration of Rs. 45 lakhs and House 16B for a consideration of Rs. 30 lakhs vide two separate purchase deeds. We also found that the assessee has entered into two separate agreements for providing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n met from the account of the assessee. We also drew support from the provisions of section 45 of the Transfer of the Property Act which provides that the share in the property will depend on the amount contributed towards the purchase consideration and as in the present case, the total contribution has come from the assessee, the exemption cannot be denied. 9. Here we would like to make it clear that the entitlement of exemption under section 54F would depend upon the verification by the A.O. as per the directions given at para 7 here in above 10. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 11. The Revenue has shown its grievance against the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) that the assessee is entitled for the set off of Short Term Capital Loss of Rs. 1,29,94,149/-. The facts giving rise to this dispute shows that the assessee has purchased Sundaram Bond Saver Units on 26.12.2003. On the very same date, the assessee received a dividend of Rs. 1,16,03,049/-. On 29.03.2004, the assessee redeemed the units for a sum of Rs. 1,70,05,850/- and thereby, booked a short term capital loss of Rs. 1,29,94,149/-. This transaction was not accepted by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the fact that the units should be deemed to have been purchased on 30.12.2003, and not 26.12.2003, the date on which the cheque was redeemed. However, I find that the Asset Management Co., managing the above mentioned scheme, vide their letter dated 29-12-2008, have very clearly submitted that the units were allotted on the basis of 'time stamp'; on the basics of confirmation received from the bank. They have also stated that this is as per SEBI guidelines. The only argument of the A.O is that the prospectus of the mutual fund scheme mentions that the dividend will be paid only when the cheque is realised. Be that as it may, the fact is that the mutual fund accepted 26.12.2003 as the date on which they have allotted the units to the appellant on the basis of a "time stamp". In the circumstances, the second condition is also not fulfilled." and on the point raised by the A.O. that the entire transaction is a colourable device to evade tax, the Ld. CIT(A) further observed as under:- "2.7 Now let us examine, whether the entire transaction is a colorable one. The A.O has relied upon the decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Vineet Jam. Now there is no doubt that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
