TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 155X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emption under section 54F of the Income Tax Act to the assessee. - decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No.649/Ahd/2016 - - - Dated:- 20-2-2019 - SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Assessee : Shri S.N. Divetia, AR with Shri Mehul Talera, AR For The Revenue : Shri S.K. Dev, Sr. DR ORDER PER RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER: Assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against order of the ld.CIT(A)-7, Ahmedabad dated 11.12.2015 passed for the Asstt.Year 2010-11. 2. Though the grounds taken by the assessee are not in consonance with Rule 8 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules; they are descriptive and argumentative in nature. The only grievance of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... one through the record carefully. The issue before us is, whether the house constructed by the assessee on a plot purchased in the name of HUF, exemption under section 54F, is available to the assessee or not ? The Revenue is of the opinion that for claiming exemption under section 54F, the investment ought to have been made in the assessee s individual name and not in the name of HUF, because, HUF is a separate taxable entity. On the other hand, stand of the assessee is that new house has been constructed on a plot purchased in the name of HUF, but members of the HUF have not contributed any money, rather whole investment was made from the sale proceeds of earlier capital asset/land as well as contribution made by the assessee only, and th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... High Court has made reference to the decision of Hon ble Madras High Court as well as Karnataka High Court. The discussion made by the Hon ble Delhi High Court is worth to note. It reads as under: 7. We have no hesitation in agreeing with the view taken by the Tribunal. Apart from the fact that the judgments of the Madras and Karnataka High Courts (supra) are in favour of the assessee, the revenue fairly brought to our notice a similar view of this Court in CIT v. Ravinder Kumar Arora [2012] 342 ITR 38/[2011] 203 Taxman 289/15 taxmann.com 307. That was also a case which arose under Section 54F of the Act. The new residential property was acquired in the joint names of the assessee and his wife. The income tax authorities restricted t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... house need not be purchased by the assessee in his own name nor is it necessary that it should be purchased exclusively in his name. It is moreover to be noted that the assessee in the present case has not purchased the new house in the name of a stranger or somebody who is unconnected with him. He has purchased it only in the name of his wife. There is also no dispute that the entire investment has come out of the sale proceeds and that there was no contribution from the assessee's wife. 10. Having regard to the rule of purposive construction and the object which Section 54F seeks to achieve and respectfully agreeing with the judgment of this Court, we answer the substantial question of law framed by us in the affirmative, in favour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
