TMI Blog2020 (11) TMI 864X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ases RAVINDER KUMAR ARORA [ 2011 (9) TMI 343 - DELHI HIGH COURT] , we set aside the orders of lower authorities and direct the AO to recalculate the exemption u/s.54F of the Act keeping in view the amount of investment made by the assessee towards purchase of said flat as per provisions of Section 54F. Also see SHRI KAMAL WAHAL [ 2013 (1) TMI 401 - DELHI HIGH COURT] - ITA No. 01/CTK/2018 - - - Dated:- 24-11-2020 - SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessee by : Shri P.R.Mohanty, AR Revenue by : Shri Sobesh Mohanty, DR ORDER Per C.M.Garg,JM This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A)-2, Bhubaneswar dated 28.8.2017 for the assessment year 2012-13. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds in his appeal: 1. For that the order of the forum below is arbitrary, illegal, unjustified and erroneous and has been passed on improper application of find, being devoid of merit as such deserves to be quashed in limine. 2. For that the addition of ₹ 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 th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ings, 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 before the Civil Court stand confirmed. 4.1 From perusal of order of the impugned order, we observe that ld CIT(A) has reproduced some photographs at pages 4 5 of the order, which shows some abundant structure but these structures show boundary wall, gate, windows, fitting etc but it is not clear that this structure is located on the same land which was sold by the assessee and his wife. As we have noted above, the assessee s wife who was holding 50% title on the said land, has not been allowed cost of improvement or indexed cost of improvement by the AO and no further appeal or any other proceedings have been initiated by her accepting the rejection of claim by the AO. In view of totality of facts and circumstances of the case, as we have noted above, we have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se and paid a sum of ₹ 1,000 as earnest money and subsequently the legal representative completed the transaction within a period of one year from the date of the death of the 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 vs. CIT (1980) 17 CTR (Mad) 322 : (1980) 125 ITR 191 (Mad) : TC22R.230. 7. Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ravinder Kumar Arora (supra) in paras 11 12 of its order held as under: Objective of s. 54F and the like provision such as s. 54 is to provide impetus 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 g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hould be purchased in the name of the assessee only. As a matter of fact, Section 54F in terms does not require that the new residential property shall be purchased in the name of the assessee; it merely says that the assessee should have purchased/constructed a residential house . 8. This Court in the decision cited alone also noticed the judgment of the Madras High Court (supra) and agreed with the same, observing that though the Madras case was decided in relation to Section 54 of the Act, that Section was in pari materia with Section 54F. The judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gurnam Singh : (2014) 327 ITR 278 in which the same view was taken with reference to Section 54F was also noticed by this Court. 9. It thus appears to us that the predominant judicial view, including that of this Court, is that for the purposes of Section 54F, the new residential 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 unconnect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
