2012 (6) TMI 230 - AT - Income Tax

Full exemption granted under Section 54F for joint property purchase despite no financial contribution

Ravinder Kumar Arora Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 24(1), New Delhi

Ravinder Kumar Arora Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 24(1), New Delhi - TMI Issues Involved:1. Whether the assessee is entitled to exemption under Section 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the entire amount invested in a new residential house purchased jointly with his wife.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Entitlement to Exemption under Section 54F:Facts of the Case:The assessee filed a return of income showing a total income of Rs. 64,32,220 for the assessment year 2007-08. The case was selected for scrutiny, and during the assessment proceedings, it was noticed that the assessee had sold a plot of land for Rs. 4,33,00,000, resulting in a long-term capital gain. The assessee claimed an exemption of Rs. 3,18,59,276 under Section 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the purchase of a new residential house for Rs. 3,28,15,000. The purchase deed was in the names of the assessee and his wife.Assessing Officer's Decision:The AO restricted the exemption under Section 54F to 50% of the claimed amount, i.e., Rs. 1,59,29,638, on the grounds that the property was purchased jointly with the assessee's wife. The AO held that the assessee was entitled to exemption only to the extent of his share in the new residential house.Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Decision:The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, relying on various judicial precedents, including the decisions of ITAT Nagpur Bench in the case of ITO v. Prakash Timaji Dhanjode and the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Jai Narayan v. ITO.Assessee's Arguments:The assessee argued that the entire consideration for the new residential house was paid by him, and his wife's name was included in the purchase deed merely to avoid any litigation after his death. The assessee's wife had no financial contribution or legal interest in the property, as evidenced by her affidavit. The assessee relied on the ITAT Madras Bench decision in the case of Third ITO v. S. Vardarajan, which held that the wife was holding the property in trust for the assessee.Tribunal's Analysis:The Tribunal examined the provisions of Section 54F, which allows exemption if the cost of the new residential house is not less than the net consideration from the original asset. The Tribunal noted that the entire purchase consideration for the new residential house was paid by the assessee, and his wife's name was included in the deed for nominal purposes. The Tribunal found that the facts of the present case were similar to those in the case of S. Vardarajan, where the property was held in trust for the assessee.Distinguishing Precedents:The Tribunal distinguished the present case from the cases of Prakash Timaji Dhanjode and Jai Narayan, where the new property was purchased in the names of third parties (son or grandson) and not in the name of the assessee. The Tribunal also referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v. P.R. Seshadri, which supported the assessee's claim for exemption under similar circumstances.Conclusion:The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to exemption under Section 54F for the entire amount of Rs. 3,28,15,000 invested in the new residential house. The Tribunal directed the AO to modify the computation of capital gain accordingly.Judgment:The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed, and the AO was directed to grant the exemption under Section 54F for the entire investment made by the assessee in the new residential house.