2020 (8) TMI 234

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ant lis seeks to reverse both the lower authorities action disallowing section 54F deduction claim of Rs. 27,66,230/-. It is not in dispute that the assessee had invested the corresponding long term capital gain in the name of his wife Mrs. Manisha Bagaria on 28.01.2011. The CIT(A)'S lower appellate order has upheld the Assessing Officer's action disallowing the impugned deduction claim for the sole reason that the assessee had not reinvested the impugned long term capital gains in his own name but in the name of his wife. The lower appellate discussion to this effect reads as under: [5.9] Section 54 refers to the assessee being an individual or a Hindu undivided family. Importantly, both are different legal entities. As per the sc....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....object, therefore, is to give all benefits under this section to the assessee on conditions as elaborated in the section. No such benefit is available to a person other than the assessee. It also means the assessee must comply with the conditions strictly as per this provision in all respects. As noted, this exemption will not be available in case where the assessee owns, on the date of transfer of the original asset, any residential house or purchased within the period of one year, after such date or constructs within a period of three years after such date any other residential house. Where an assessee purchases or constructs any other residential house within the period of the aforesaid exemption under the proposed provision, if allowed,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eds of the sale of original asset by the assessee. [5.12] Having observed above and in view of the undisputed position on the record that the appellant, admittedly, though sold the property part owned by him yet did not purchase any property in his name benefit u/s.54F was not allowable. In the case of Prakash v ITO [2008] 312 ITR 40 (Bom) one of the questions w« exactly the same being : - "Whether for qualifying exemption under section 54 of the Income-tax ACT is it necessary and obligatory to have investment made in residential house in the name of assessee only or investment in residential house is enough to qualify and claim the said exemption? ....YES" [5.13] After examining the law in this regard the H....