2019 (3) TMI 155

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....te Tribunal) Rules; they are descriptive and argumentative in nature. The only grievance of the assessee is that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in upholding the disallowance of exemption under section 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 amounting to Rs. 57,74,673/- revised by the AO. 3. Brief facts of the case are that originally assessee has filed his return of income on 15.6.2010 declaring taxable income of Rs. 3,76,810/-. This return was processed under section 143(1) of the Act. Thereafter, an assessment was made under section 143(3) on 18.1.2012 determining taxable income at Rs. 3,76,810/- . Fresh assessment has been made in pursuance of order passed by the ld.Commissioner under section 263 of the Income Tax Act. It emerges out that the assess....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t/land as well as contribution made by the assessee only, and therefore, it fulfilled all the requisite conditions. It was contended before us, that this aspect has been considered by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and Karnataka High Court as well as ITAT, Ahmedabad Bench, wherein the Hon'ble High Courts and Tribunal concurred unanimously that it is not necessary to purchase new house only in the name of individual, and if other family members has also been made as co-owners, then also exemption under section 54F could be claimed. A reference to the following decision was made: i) CIT Vs. Ravinder Kumar Arora, 342 ITR 38 (Del) ii) DCIT Vs. Mrs. Jeniffer Bhide, 349 ITR 080 (Kar) iii) CIT Vs. Kamal Wahal, 351 ITR 04 (....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....int names of the assessee and his wife. The income tax authorities restricted the deduction under Section 54F to 50% on the footing that the deduction was not available on the portion of the investment which stands in the name of the assessee's wife. This view was disapproved by this Court. It noted that the entire purchase consideration was paid only by the assessee and not a single penny was contributed by the assessee's wife. It also noted that a purposive construction is to be preferred as against a literal construction, more so when even applying the literal construction, there is nothing in the section to show that the house should be purchased in the name of the assessee only. As a matter of fact, Section 54F in terms does no....