TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (3) TMI 42
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....filed his return of income for the impugned assessment year on 13-06-2007 declaring total income of Rs. 3,41,750/-. Notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee. During the course of assessment proceedings u/s. 147 the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee was required to pay tax on the Capital Gains earned on sale of property situated at Kakasaheb Gadgil Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai. The assessee in his return of income had not declared capital gain arising from sale of property. The assessee had sold the property for a consideration of Rs. 42 lakhs where as the market value of the property for stamp duty purpose was Rs. 50 lakhs. The Assessing Officer vide order dated 29-12-2009 made addition of Rs. 30,70,882/- on account of L....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ad invested sale proceeds towards the purchase of flats. The assessee was not aware that he could claim deduction u/s. 54/54F of the Act. The ld AR submitted that the assessee is filing following additional evidences i.e. (i) A copy of bank account of the assessee, (ii) Allotment letter from M/s. Juhu Beach Corporation and (iii) Deed of Confirmation in respect of flats No. 202 and 701 from M/s. Juhu Beach Corporation, to show that the assessee had invested the sale proceeds of the capital assets sold for purchase of flats. The ld. AR submitted that although the assessee was eligible to claim relief u/s. 54/54F of the Act in respect of Capital Gain earned, however, due to ignorance of the assessee about the provisions of Income Tax Act, the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. 54/54F as the flats were purchased by the assessee in the name of his wife. The assessee could have claimed exemption under the provisions of section 54/54F of the Act, if the flats were purchased in his own name. The assessee is not eligible to claim deduction where the capital asset is purchased in the name of any family member or any other person. In support of his submissions, the ld. DR placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Prakash Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported as 312 ITR 40 (Bom) and the decision of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Jai Narayan Vs. Income Tax Officer reported as 306 ITR 335 (P&H). 5. The ld. AR controverting the submissions made on behalf o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rabhadevi, Mumbai in the return of income. The assessee had sold the property vide sale deed dated 01-02-2006 i.e. in the period relevant to the assessment year 2006-07. It is equally undisputed that the assessee had purchased two flats bearing no. 202 on second floor and 701 on the seventh floor of building at Vile Parle, Mumbai. The said flats were purchased by the assessee in the name of his wife. The flats were allotted vide allotment letter dated 15-04-2005. The payment of the flats was made in the month of January/February, 2006 from the bank account of the assessee. The deed of confirmation was executed in the name of the wife of the assessee on 11-12-2007. To be eligible to claim deduction under the provisions of section 54, the amo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Ravinder Kumar Arora (supra) has observed that a plain reading of provisions of section 54F indicate that in order to get benefit of section, the condition stipulated in section 54 are fulfilled even if the property is purchased in the joint name with wife. Moreover, section 54F mandates that the house should be purchased by the assessee and it does not stipulate that the house should be purchased in the name of assessee only. The Hon'ble High Court further held that the provisions of section 54F are beneficial provisions and should be liberally interpreted in favour of the exemption/deduction to the tax payer. The deduction should not be denied on hyper technical ground. In view of the above we are of the considered view that the asse....