9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (11) TMI 864X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch deserves to be quashed in limine. 2. For that the addition of Rs. 46,97,992/- to the total income disallowing the claim of exemption u/s.54 of the I.T.Act deserves to be deleted on the ground that not only it is unjustified on the facts and in the circumstances of the case as contrary to legislative intentions but also unwarranted as per the statutory provisions. 3. For that the addition of Rs. 53,020/- to the total income deserves to be deleted on the ground that not only it is unjustified on the facts and in the circumstances of the case as contrary to legislative intentions but also unwarranted as per the statutory provisions." 3. Ld counsel for the assessee submitted that neither the AO nor the ld CIT(A) allowed the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be denied at the threshold in absence of any sustainable and acceptable evidence showing improvement by the assessee on the land sold by him. From the relevant part of assessment order para (iii) at page 5, it is clearly discernible that the AO while denying cost of improvement, clearly observed that the construction of buildings, out house, boundary wall etc cannot be conclusively proved in the absence of supporting bills/vouchers/invoice and photo, hence, same cannot be relied upon. The AO observed that the AR of the assessee could not produce any irrefutable evidence about existence of any residential house on the disputed land, which leads to an irresistible inference that the description/character of property in the compromise petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tly relied on the following judicial pronouncements: i) Late MIR Gulam Ali Khan vs CIT, 165 ITR 228 (AP) ii) CIT vs Ravinder Kumar Arora, 342 ITR 38 (Del) iii) CIT vs Kamal Wahal, 351 ITR 4 (Del) iv) N.Ram Kumar vs ACIT, 79 DTR Trib 386 (Hyd) v) Smt. A Tamil Ponni order dated 25.2.2020 in ITA No.3112/Chn/2019 vi) ITAT 'F' Delhi in Shri Ramphal Hooda in ITA No.8478/Del/2019 dated 2.3.2020. 6. Hon'ble A.P High Court in the case of Late Mir Gulam Ali Khan (supra) held as under: "Relying upon the expression "assessee" occurring in s. 54 of the Act, it is contended for the Department that in order to claim the exemption, the person who sold the house must be the same as the person who purchased the house, that is, the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mpetus to the house construction and so long as the purpose of house construction is achieved, such hyper technicality should not impede the way of deduction which the legislature has allowed. Purposive construction is to be preferred as against the literal construction, more so when even literal construction also does not say that the house should be purchased in the name of the assessee only. Sec. 54F of the Act is the beneficial provision which should be interpreted liberally in favour of the exemption/deduction to the taxpayer and deduction should not be denied on hyper technical ground. Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Late Mir Gulam Ali Khan vs. CIT (1986) 56 CTR (AP) 144 : (1987) 165 ITR 228 (AP) has held that the object of g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 the deduction under Section 54F to 50 percent on the footing that the deduction was not available on the portion of the investment which stands in the name of the assessee's wife. This view was disapproved by this Court. It noted that the entire purchase consideration was paid only by the assessee and not a single penny was contributed by the assessee's wife. It also noted that a purposive construction is to be preferred as against a literal construction, more so when even applying the literal construction, there is nothing in the section to show that the house should be purchas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e has not purchased any property in his name and that exemption u/s.54F cannot be allowed to the assessee even if he purchases residential unit by utilizing the money received against sale of land for purchase of residential unit in the name of his wife and son. 10. When we analyse the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ravinder Kumar Arora (supra), we find that Sec. 54F of the Act is the beneficial provision which should be interpreted liberally in favour of the exemption/deduction to the taxpayer and deduction should not be denied on hyper technical ground. Similarly, Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Late Mir Gulam Ali Khan (supra) has held that the object of granting exemption under s. 54 of the Act is that an a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
