TMI Blog2020 (4) TMI 217X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ructing residential premises. Once the sale consideration is invested in any of these manners, the assessee would be entitled to the benefit conferred under these provisions. In the absence of an express provision contained in these provisions that the investment should be in the name of the assessee only any such interpretation would amount to introducing words in the provision which are not there. The Court could not legislate when Parliament has deliberately not used those words in the section. The same view was taken by the Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Gurnam Singh [2008 (4) TMI 28 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] Assessing Officer has to see whether the investment in the new residential house has been made o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 77; 12,49,550. (b) Consequent to the addition, the learned CIT (Appeals), Bengaluru-2 has imposed the tax liability including interest of ₹ 3,06,465. 4. The learned CIT (Appeals), Bengaluru-2 has erred in making various observations and coming to various conclusions that the investment in the name of spouse does not qualify for exemption u/s 54F such conclusion is against the provision of law. 5. The appellant denies the liability to pay interest. The interest having been levied erroneously is to be deleted. 6. In view of the above and other grounds to be adduced at the time of hearing it is requested that the impugned order be quashed. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee is an i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 75,050/-. The appellant has claimed the entire LTCG of ₹ 11,94,950/-as exempt from tax u/s.54F by purchasing a new residential property in the name of her husband. The Assessing Officer has concluded that the provisions of section 54 do not provide for investment in the name of husband/spouse and therefore the exemption u/s 54 was disallowed. Appellant placed reliance on decision of Honorable High Court of Karnataka in the case of DIT vs Mrs.Jennifer Bhide ITA 169/2011 (349 ITR 80), Mahadev Balai vs. ITO ITA No. 136/2017 - Honorable Rajasthan High Court and CIT vs Kamal Wahal 351 ITR 4 - Honorable Delhi High Court. The appellant submitted that both the Honorable High Court Rajasthan and Honorable High Court Delhi referred to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the assessee has acquired a new residential property situated at 25 26, 5th Cross, Gandhinagar, Bengaluru for a consideration of ₹ 1,35,38,200 on 09.06.2015. The said property was jointly held by the assessee with the following persons, viz., (i) Sri. Manikchand Baldota, (ii) Smt.Maina Baldola, and (iii) Sri.Dhanpal I.Sakaria. Shri Dhanpal I.Sakaria is the husband of the assessee. The Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(A) denied deduction u/s 54F of the Act, as the assessee has not invested the sale consideration in her name. Section 54 reads as under:- Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), where, in the case of an assessee being an individual or a Hindu undivided family, the capital gain arises from the transfer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... one year before or two years after the date on which the transfer took place, purchased or within the period of three years after the date of construction of a residential house, then instead of capital gain being charged to income-tax as income of the previous year in which the transfer took place, it shall be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of section 54 of the Act, which grants exemption from payment of tax there under. Therefore, in the entire section 54, the requirement that the purchase to be made or the construction to be put up by the assessee, should be in the name of the assessee, is not expressly stated. Therefore, to attract section 54 of the Act, what is material is the investment of the sale consideration in ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
