9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (4) TMI 404X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that there was no delay in filing of appeal. The impugned order was passed on 29.07.2021. The order was served on the assessee on 01.10.2021. The assessee filed appeal through e-portal of the Tribunal on 15.11.2021. Subsequently, the assessee furnished physical copy of appeal to the Registry on 30.05.2024. The Registry has taken note of only the physical appeal filed by the assessee and has ignored the appeal filed by the assessee through e-filing portal of the Tribunal. To substantiate his contention, the assessee has placed on record a screenshot from the official portal of the Tribunal, indicating date of filing of appeal as 15.11.2021 against acknowledgment number 16336974507. Considering the facts explained by the assessee, the appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 130/-. As the assessee had failed to furnish any documentary evidence with regard to utilization of balance Long Term Caital Gain. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 14.12.2019, the assessee carried the issue in appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) issued enhancement notice to the assessee and vide impugned order disallowed assessee's entire claim of deduction u/s.54 of the Act on the ground that the new asset has been purchased in the name of spouse, hence, the assessee is not eligible for deduction u/s. 154 of the Act. The CIT(A) in order to support his findings has placed reliance on the decisions rendered by Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court and Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court. Hence, present appeal by the assessee. 4. Ms. S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e is concerned, it is not in dispute. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Kamal Wahal 30 taxmann.com 34 and CIT vs. Ravinder Kumar Arora 15 taxmann.com 307 has held that wherein new house is purchased in the name of spouse of the assessee, the assessee is eligible for claiming deduction u/s. 54F of the Act. The provisions of section 54F of the Act are pari materia with the provisions of section 54 of the Act. Thus, the law expounded by Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in respect of section 54F of the Act, would equally hold good for deduction claimed u/s. 54 of the Act. It is a well settled legal preposition that purposive construction is to be preferred as against literal construction, more so when literal construction doe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
