Tribunal denies exemption for flat bought in spouse's name under Income Tax Act Section 54F

The Tribunal upheld the decision to deny the assessee exemption under Section 54F of the Income Tax Act for one of the two flats purchased, as it was bought in the name of the assessee's wife and outside the specified time frame. The assessee's appeal was dismissed, confirming the Assessing Officer's decision to grant exemption only for the flat purchased in the assessee's name.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility for exemption under Section 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the purchase of two adjacent flats used as a single unit.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Facts of the Case:
- The assessee sold a property on 30.03.2013 for Rs.1,51,00,000/-.
- The assessee purchased two flats: Flat No. 401 in the name of his wife on 11/08/2011 and Flat No. 402 in his own name on 26/06/2012.
- The assessee claimed exemption under Section 54F for both flats, arguing they were used as a single residential unit.

2. Assessing Officer's Decision:
- The AO allowed the exemption only for Flat No. 402.
- The AO denied the exemption for Flat No. 401, purchased in the name of the assessee's wife, and 17 months before the sale of the original asset.

3. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Decision:
- The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, emphasizing that Flat No. 401 was purchased in the name of the assessee's wife and 17 months before the sale of the original asset.
- The CIT(A) cited the case of CIT vs. Devdas Naik (2014) to support that the flats cannot be considered a single residential unit for exemption purposes under Section 54F.

4. Arguments by the Assessee:
- The assessee argued that Flat No. 401 was purchased for his wife's security and later combined with Flat No. 402 to form a single residential unit.
- The assessee cited a supplementary agreement dated 27/07/2012, which increased the carpet area of Flat No. 401 without additional consideration.

5. Arguments by the Revenue:
- The Revenue contended that Flat No. 401 was purchased more than one year before the sale of the original asset, making it ineligible for exemption under Section 54F.
- The Revenue emphasized that the flats were purchased separately and any modifications to combine them were not legally recognized.

6. Tribunal's Decision:
- The Tribunal upheld the decisions of the lower authorities, reiterating that Section 54F requires the new asset to be purchased by the assessee within the specified time frame.
- The Tribunal emphasized that the purchase must be in the name of the assessee, not a relative, citing various High Court judgments including Kalya vs. CIT, Vipin Malik vs. CIT, and Prakash vs. ITO.

7. Key Legal Interpretations:
- Section 54F: The exemption applies only if the new residential house is purchased by the assessee within one year before or two years after the sale of the original asset.
- Ownership Requirement: The new asset must be purchased in the name of the assessee, not in the name of a relative, to qualify for the exemption.
- Judicial Precedents: The Tribunal relied on judgments from various High Courts, which consistently held that the exemption under Section 54F is not available if the new asset is purchased in the name of a person other than the assessee.

8. Conclusion:
- The Tribunal concluded that the assessee is not entitled to the exemption under Section 54F for Flat No. 401 as it was purchased in the name of his wife and outside the specified time frame.
- The appeal of the assessee was dismissed, and the AO's decision to restrict the exemption to Flat No. 402 was upheld.

Final Judgment:
- The appeal of the assessee was dismissed, and the order pronounced in the open Court on 15th July, 2022.

---