This will be an appeal filed by the assessee from the purchase of ld. CIT(A)-III, Jaipur dated 16.12.2015 for Assessment 12 months 2012-13 wherein the assessee has challenged the action of ld. CIT(A) in confirming the dis allowance of exemption of Rs. 30,00,000/- claimed u/s 54F regarding the Act.

Fleetingly stated, the reality associated with the instance are that throughout the 12 months under consideration, the assessee has sold three agriculture lands belonging to him for the purchase consideration of Rs. 99,25,000. The assessee has bought another land that is agricultural a consideration of Rs. 32,00,000/- for which deduction u/s 54F has been reported and exact same ended up being permitted by the Assessing Officer and it is maybe not in dispute before us. The assessee in addition has bought a domestic home on 23.05.2011 for the purchase consideration of Rs. 30,00,000/- within the title of their spouse, Smt. Nikita Jain, and stated deduction u/s 54F for the Act and which will be in dispute before us.

throughout the length of evaluation proceedings, the assessee had been expected to show cause as to the reasons the reported u/s 54F of this Act, 1961 might not be disallowed, once the home had not been owned into the title of assessee. As a result, the assessee presented that the consideration for such home ended up being given out of payment of advance of the assessee received from Narvik Nirman & Financiars Pvt. Ltd. plus it was further submitted that the brand new house that is residential not be bought because of the assessee in the very own title neither is it necessary that it should really be bought solely in the title. It absolutely was submitted that the assessee have not bought the brand new household in the title of the complete stranger and whole investment has arrived from the supply of the assessee and there was no share through the assessee’s wife. The distribution associated with assessee ended up being considered not discovered acceptable towards the Assessing Officer. The property which was sold was belonging to the assessee whereas the reinvestment in property (residential house) has been made in the name of Smt as per Assessing Officer. Nikita Jain, wife associated with the assessee. It had been further held by the AO that Smt. Nikita Jain, spouse associated with the assessee, is having her PAN and filing her return of earnings which can be additionally examined to tax, consequently, according to tax conditions, spouse and spouse both could not be regarded as solitary entity while the advantageous asset of investment produced by a person assessee can not be fond of another assessee that is individual. The AO reference that is further drawn the provisions of Section 54F associated with the Act and held that to claim deduction, the investment in new asset should always be into the title of assessee himself. It had been further held because of the AO that in lack of the non-public stability sheet regarding the assessee and absence of appropriate documentary evidence, it can’t be ascertained whether assessee does not obtain one or more domestic home, apart from brand new asset, on the date of transfer for the asset that is original. Consequently, of these two reasons, the claim associated with the assessee u/s 54F for the I.T.Act, 1961 had been disallowed.

Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the problem in appeal prior to the ld CIT(A) and presented that the purchase of a brand new house that is residential become bought because of the assessee.

But, it isn’t particularly required underneath the legislation that your house must certanly be bought within the title of assessee only. It had been further contended that liberal construction ought to be directed at conditions of section 54F for the Act and in case substantive requirement are satisfied, benefit provided by the Parliament really should not be recinded for tiny and unimportant inconsistencies. Further, the assessee put reliance in the choice of Honorable Delhi tall Court in the event of CIT vs. Kamal Wahal (351 ITR 4), wherein, within the context of section 54F of the Act and buy of household into the name of assessee’s spouse, it was held that this new residential household need not be bought by the assessee inside the name neither is it necessary so it is bought and solely in the title. Further, reliance had been positioned on your decision of Honorable Madras tall Court in the event of CIT vs. V. Natarajan (287 ITR 271) where in fact the home had been purchased within the name associated with the assessee’s wife, deduction under part 54 ended up being permitted. Further, reliance had been added to your decision of Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh tall Court in case of belated Gulam Ali Khan vs. CIT (165 ITR 228) wherein when you look at the context of part 54 of this Act, it had been held that your message ‘assessee’ should be offered a broad and interpretation that is liberal as to add their appropriate heirs additionally. Further, reliance ended up being added to your choice of Honorable Karnataka tall Court when you look at the full instance of DIT vs. Mrs. Jennifer Bhide (349 ITR 80) wherein it absolutely was held that in which the whole consideration has flown from her husband, merely because either in the purchase deed or within the bond, her husband’s name can be mentioned, the assessee is not rejected the advantage of deduction u/s 54 and 54EC regarding the Act russian brides at https://sweetbrides.net/russian-brides/. Further, reliance had been positioned on your decision of Honorable Delhi tall Court in the event of CIT vs. Ravinder Kumar Arora (342 ITR 38) wherein into the context of section 54F for the Act, it absolutely was held that where in actuality the assessee has included the title of their spouse therefore the home has been bought jointly within the names, it can maybe perhaps not make a difference therefore the conditions stipulated in section stand that is 54F.

The ld. CIT(A) but relied from the decision of Honorable Rajasthan High Court in case of Kalya vs. CIT (251 CTR 174) wherein within the context of section 54B associated with the Act, it absolutely was held that the assessee wouldn’t be eligible to get exemption for land purchase by him into the title of their son and daughter-in-law. Further within the said choice, it absolutely was held that the word ‘assessee’ utilized in the IT Act has to be provided a ‘legal interpretation’ and not just a ‘liberal interpretation, it shall curtail the revenue of the Government, which the law does not permit as it would tantamount to giving a free hand to the assessee and his legal heirs and. Following choice of Honorable Rajasthan High Court in the event of Kalya, the ld. CIT(A) upheld the rejection of claim for the assessee u/s 54F of this Act.

The ld during the course of hearing. AR reiterated the submissions created before the ld. CIT(A). Further, ld. AR additionally drawn our mention of the current choice of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the event of Sh. Mahadev Balai vs. ITO (D.B. ITA No. 136/2017 & others dated 07.11.2017) wherein into the context of section 54B, it absolutely was held that in which the investment is created within the title associated with the wife, the assessee will be qualified to receive claim of deduction u/s 54B of the Act.

within the said instance, the assessee has offered agricultural land and bought another agricultural land into the title of their spouse and stated deduction u/s 54B of this Act. The Co-ordinate Bench vide its purchase in ITA No. 333/JP/2016 dated 26.12.2016 following choice of Honorable Rajasthan tall Court in the event of Kalya vs. CIT(supra) had determined the problem from the assessee and it has verified the denial of deduction u/s 54B of the Act. The Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court has framed the following substantial question of law in the context of said facts, on appeal by the assessee

“Where ld. ITAT ended up being justified in disallowing the exemption u/s 54B o f the Act without appreciating that the funds used for the investment to buy of this home eligible u/s 54B belonged towards the appellant just and simply the document that is registered performed into the name o f the spouse and additional the spouse hadn’t split income source.”

The Honorable Rajasthan tall Court, after considering its earlier choice in the event of Kalya vs. CIT(supra) therefore the some other decisions of Honorable Delhi tall Court, Honorable Madras tall Court, Honorable Karnataka tall Court, Honorable Punjab and Haryana tall Court, and Honorable Andhra Pradesh High Court, as additionally relied upon by the assessee, has held that it’s the assessee that has to spend which is perhaps not specified within the legislation that the investment is usually to be into the name of this assessee and where in fact the investment is manufactured within the title of spouse, the assessee will probably be qualified to receive deduction and it has hence decided the problem in preference of the assessee. The relevant findings associated with Honorable Rajasthan tall Court are included at para 7.2 and 7.3 of its purchase that are reproduced as under:-

The word used is assessee has to invest, it is not specified that it is to be in the name o f assessee 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.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *