9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 418X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The grounds raised by the assessee read as under:- 1. The order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -15, Chennai dated 18.10.2019 in I.T.A. No. 98/CIT(A)-15/2018-19, for the above mentioned Assessment Year is contrary to law, facts, and in the circumstances of the case. 2. The CIT (Appeals) erred in sustaining the action of the Assessing Officer in denying exemption/deduction u/s 54F of the Act pertaining to the reinvestment in the name of the appellant's wife without assigning proper reasons and justification. 3. The CIT(Appeals) failed to appreciate that having complied with the conditions prescribed for making the claim for exemption/deduction u/s 54F of the Act, the sustenance of the disallowance of such claim of exe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to appreciate that the judgment of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case reported in 407 ITR 1 would fortify the stand of the Appellant thereby vitiating the related findings at Para 6.5 of the impugned order. 8. The CIT(Appeals) failed to appreciate that there was no proper opportunity given before passing the impugned order and any order passed in violation of the principles of natural justice is nullity in law. As is evident, the sole issue that fall for our consideration is to determine assessee's' eligible to claim deduction u/s 54F. 2. The Ld. AR advanced arguments supporting the case of the assessee and relied on various judicial decisions to submit the as per liberal construction, impugned deduction would be available to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. 2047/Mds/2015 dated 07-04-2016) while arriving at such a conclusion. In this case law, such deduction was denied since the investment was made by the assessee in the name of unmarried daughter. Finally, the impugned deduction was denied to the assessee and an assessment was framed raising certain demand against the assessee. The Ld.CIT(A) concurred with the stand of Ld. AO. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. Our findings and Adjudication 4. We find that basic facts and relevant dates are not in dispute. The assessee fulfills all the other eligibility conditions to claim the deduction u/s 54F except for the fact that the new investment has been made in the name of his wife. As per the provisions of Sec.54F, the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The same lend certain credence to the claim of the assessee. The assessee and his wife would have commonality of interest to make investment in new house. Under these peculiar facts, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee would be eligible to claim the said deduction. We order so. The decision of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in CIT v. Ravinder Kumar Arora [2011] 15 Taxmann.com 307 supports our view. In this case, the investment was made by the assessee jointly with his wife. The Ld. AO restricted the deduction to the extent of 50%. However, Tribunal allowed full deduction and Hon'ble High Court upheld the action of Tribunal. We are of the considered opinion that similar ratio would apply here. Therefore, we direct Ld.AO to allow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
