TMI Blog2020 (9) TMI 229X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the boundary wall being height and thickness of the wall we estimate cost of construction of the boundary wall - AO is directed to allow the cost of improvement while computing the capital gain. Disallowance of deduction u/s 54 - new property purchase by the assessee in the name of wife AND not in assesse own name - HELD THAT:- Since the assessee has sold only plot of land and not a residential house, therefore, the deduction U/s 54 of the Act is not admissible but the deduction U/s 54F is allowable. Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the case when the assessee purchased the said new residential house property in the name of wife but the investment was made by the assessee from his bank account as it is evident from the bank account statement then the claim of deduction U/s 54F of the Act cannot be denied on the ground of investment made in the name of wife. We direct the AO to compute allowable deduction U/s 54F after considering the sale proceeds and the total amount of investment for purchase of new house property. As regards the claim of expenditure incurred by the assessee on the renovation of the new asset purchased by the assessee we note that neither the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . AO disallowed u/s 54 only on account of the Property purchased in the Wife name, but on the facts and circumstances of the case CIT (Appeals) erred in disallowing the exemption u/s 54 on the ground that the asset is only structure and it is unfinished. The CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate the fact that the new asset is residential house property (Under Housing Scheme of RHB,) and assessee has incurred ₹ 3,34,800/- to make it liveable. Looking to the facts and circumstance of the case and disallowance of Exemption u/s 54 is unjustified and bad in law. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case CIT (Appeals) erred in disallowing registry expense of ₹ 51,900/- paid on property purchased (on new Assets). Looking to the facts and circumstance of the case and disallowance is unjustified and bad in law. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case CIT (Appeals) erred in disallowing cost of improvement incurred by the Assessee amounting to ₹ 3,34,800/-. Assessee incurred cost of improvement on property to make it liveable. Total cost of property is amounting to ₹ 12,36,700/-. This has not considered by the CIT (Appeals). Looking to the fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plot at the time of purchase. The ld. AR has then referred to the sale deed dated 05.11.2008 whereby the said plot of land was sold by the assessee and submitted that at page 31 of the paper book it is stated that there is boundary wall around the said plot running 57 meter. Thus, the ld. AR has submitted that once there was construction of wall on the plot of land then in the claim of cost of improvement ought to have been allowed while computing the capital gain. 4. On the other hand, ld. DR has submitted that the assessee has not produced any evidence regarding any expenditure incurred for construction of boundary wall. The assessee has also not produced any documents to show as to when the boundary wall was constructed therefore, in the absence of any supporting evidence the claim of the assessee cannot be accepted. She has further submitted that even in the sale deed the description of boundary wall is added subsequently in hand written instead of type contents of sale deed. She has relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 5. We have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. Except the description of plot of land in question given i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing is unfurnished. The A/R of the appellant failed to file any details of the construction or improvement made in the said structure. Therefore, this structure is not consider as residential building. Hence the deduction u/s 54 is not given because the property is not in position to live the persons. It is pertinent to note that the assessee has purchased a residential house which was originally allotted by the Rajasthan Housing Board. Though the residential house bearing No. 192/351 Measuring 120 sq. mtr. MIG category purchased by the assessee was not fit for occupation at that point of time being a skelton unfurnished house however, the structure as constructed by the Housing Board was a residential house and thereafter the assessee has carried out the necessary work of renovation to make it habitable. The assessee has produced various documents in support of renovation work carried out in the said property after acquisition. Therefore, once the assessee has purchased a residential house which was originally allotted by the Rajasthan Housing Board and thereafter the assessee has also carried out renovation work to make the same habitable then it would be amounting to acqui ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ering its earlier decision in case of Kalya vs. CIT(supra) and the various other decisions of Hon ble Delhi High Court, Hon ble Madras High Court, Hon ble Karnataka High Court, Hon ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, and Hon ble Andhra Pradesh High Court, as also relied upon by the assessee, has held that it is the assessee who has to invest and it is not specified in the legislation that the investment is to be in the name of the assessee and where the investment is made in the name of wife, the assessee shall be eligible for deduction and has thus decided the matter in favour of the assessee. The relevant findings of the Hon ble Rajasthan High Court are contained at para 7.2 and 7.3 of its order which are reproduced as under:- 7.2 On the ground of investment made by the assessee in the name of his wife, in view of the decision of Delhi High Court in Sunbeam Auto Ltd. and other judgments of different High Courts, the word used is assessee has to invest, it is not specified that it is to be in the name of assessee. 7.3 It is true that the contentions which have been raised by the department is that the investment is made by the assessee in his own name but the legislatu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
