TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (12) TMI 1769
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....acts of the case are that during the year under consideration, the assessee has sold three agriculture lands belonging to him for a sale consideration of Rs. 99,25,000. The assessee has purchased another agricultural land at a consideration of Rs. 32,00,000/- for which deduction u/s 54F has been claimed and same was allowed by the Assessing Officer and is not in dispute before us. The assessee has also purchased a residential property on 23.05.2011 for a purchase consideration of Rs. 30,00,000/- in the name of his wife, Smt. Nikita Jain, and claimed deduction u/s 54F of the Act and which is in dispute before us. 3. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to show cause as to why the claimed u/s 54F of the Act, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the name of assessee himself. It was further held by the AO that in absence of the personal balance sheet of the assessee and absence of proper documentary evidence, it cannot be ascertained whether assessee does not own more than one residential house, other than new asset, on the date of transfer of the original asset. Accordingly, for these two reasons, the claim of the assessee u/s 54F of the I.T.Act, 1961 was disallowed. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld CIT(A) and submitted that the purchase of a new residential house has to be purchased by the assessee. However, it is not specifically required under the law that the house should be purchased in the name of assessee only. It was further co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nnot be denied the benefit of deduction u/s 54 and 54EC of the Act. Further, reliance was placed on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. Ravinder Kumar Arora (342 ITR 38) wherein in the context of section 54F of the Act, it was held that where the assessee has included the name of his wife and the property has been purchased jointly in the names, it would not make any difference and the conditions stipulated in section 54F stand fulfilled. 8. The ld. CIT(A) however relied on the decision of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in case of Kalya vs. CIT (251 CTR 174) wherein in the context of section 54B of the Act, it was held that the assessee would not be entitled to get exemption for land purchase by him in the name of h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gh Court has framed the following substantial question of law: "Where ld. ITAT was justified in disallowing the exemption u/s 54B of the Act without appreciating that the funds utilized for the investment for purchase of the property eligible u/s 54B belonged to the appellant only and merely the registered document was executed in the name of the wife and further the wife had not separate source of income." 11. The Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court, after considering its earlier decision in case of Kalya vs. CIT(supra) and the various other decisions of Hon'ble Delhi High Court, Hon'ble Madras High Court, Hon'ble Karnataka High Court, Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, and Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court, as also relied upon by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... be accepted." 12. In light of legal proposition so laid down by the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in case of Mahadev Balai (supra), where the investment in the new house property has flown from the assessee, which is not in dispute in the instant case, merely for the reason that the new residential house property has been purchased by the assessee in the name of his wife, the same cannot be basis for the denial of deduction claimed u/s 54F of the Act. 13. Regarding the second condition of claiming the deduction u/s 54F, which as per AO, the assessee has not substantiated in the instant case, which requires that assessee does not own more than one residential house, other than new asset, on the date of transfer of the original asset., ....