TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 145X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation of the house in the name of his minor daughter. As decided in Late Mir Gulam Ali Khan (by Legal Representative Mrs. Noor Begum Versus Commissioner Of Income-Tax [1984 (12) TMI 9 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] the word 'assessee' also includes the legal heir - Also CIT v. Ravinder Kumar Arora [2011 (9) TMI 343 - DELHI HIGH COURT] states that Section 54F mandates that the house should be purchased by the assessee and it does not stipulate that the house should be purchased in the name of the assessee only. Thus considering the well settled principle of law that when there are divergent views, to give effect to a beneficial provision the view favourable to the assessee has to be adopted - decided in favour of assessee. - IT APPEAL NO. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... decided by the CIT(A) on the basis of statement of facts and grounds of appeal filed before him. The CIT(A) upheld the reasoning of the AO that since the property was purchased in the name of the assessee's daughter and not in the name of the assessee himself, no deduction u/s 54F can be allowed. 4. The learned AR for the assessee submitted before us that the property was purchased in the name of minor daughter who is considered to be very auspicious for the assessee. However, the entire investment in the purchase of property was made by the assessee himself. It was submitted that the income of the minor daughter is also assessed at the hands of the assessee only. The learned AR submitted that the term/meaning of the word purchase ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d for the income tax purposes with the income of her father. This does not abolishes her legal identity as an individual and it is to the limited purpose of calculating tax under the Income-tax Act, her income is clubbed to the father's income. Therefore, the assessee and his minor daughter cannot be held to be the same. Distinguishing the case laws cited by the learned AR, the learned DR submitted that the issues involved in the cases are factually distinguishable since they are relating to section 54 of the Act and not relating to section 54F. The learned DR submitted that section 54F is more legal in approach since u/s 54F, the ownership rights in the name of the assessee is required to enable him to get the benefits of section 54F o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns that the minor daughter has no ostensible source to make such investment in purchase of flat. It is the assessee who had actually made the investment out of the consideration received towards sale of shares. The assessee has also explained the reason behind registration of the house in the name of his minor daughter. In the aforesaid factual backdrop, the decisions cited at the Bar are found to be expressing divergent view. The A P High Court in the case of Late Mir Gulam Ali Khan (supra) while examining he allow ability of exemption u/s 54 of the Act held that the word 'assessee' must be given a wide and liberal interpretation so as to include his legal heirs also. The Honourable AP High Court further held the provision containe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deceased. The sale and purchase are two links in the same chain. We are fortified in this view by a decision of the Madras High court in C.V. Ramanathan v. CIT [1989] 125 ITR 191. 7. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ravinder Kumar Arora (supra) following the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Late Mir Gulam Ali Khan (supra) held that the language of section 54F does not mandate that the house property should be purchased in the name of the assessee alone. The Honourable Delhi High Court held that the word assessee must be given wide and liberal interpretation as held by the Hon'ble AP High Court in the case of Late Mir Gulam Ali Khan (supra). The Hon'ble Delhi Hig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ovision. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of K.P. Verghese v. ITO [1981] 131 ITR 597 has observed in the following manner:- A statutory provision must be so construed, if possible, that absurdity and mischief may be avoided. Where the plain literal interpretation of a statutory provision produces a manifestly absurd and unjust result which could never have been intended by the legislature, the court may modify the language used by the legislature or even do some violence to it, so as to achieve the obvious intention of the legislature and produce a rational construction. It is also well settled principle of law that when there are divergent views, to give effect to a beneficial provision the view favourable to the assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
