TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (11) TMI 864
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pplication of find, being devoid of merit as such deserves to be quashed in limine. 2. For that the addition of Rs. 46,97,992/- to the total income disallowing the claim of exemption u/s.54 of the I.T.Act deserves to be deleted on the ground that not only it is unjustified on the facts and in the circumstances of the case as contrary to legislative intentions but also unwarranted as per the statutory provisions. 3. For that the addition of Rs. 53,020/- to the total income deserves to be deleted on the ground that not only it is unjustified on the facts and in the circumstances of the case as contrary to legislative intentions but also unwarranted as per the statutory provisions." 3. Ld counsel for the assessee submitted....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eightage of such action of factual matrix and evidence cannot be denied at the threshold in absence of any sustainable and acceptable evidence showing improvement by the assessee on the land sold by him. From the relevant part of assessment order para (iii) at page 5, it is clearly discernible that the AO while denying cost of improvement, clearly observed that the construction of buildings, out house, boundary wall etc cannot be conclusively proved in the absence of supporting bills/vouchers/invoice and photo, hence, same cannot be relied upon. The AO observed that the AR of the assessee could not produce any irrefutable evidence about existence of any residential house on the disputed land, which leads to an irresistible inference that th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....id further family litigation after their death. Ld counsel vehemently relied on the following judicial pronouncements: i) Late MIR Gulam Ali Khan vs CIT, 165 ITR 228 (AP) ii) CIT vs Ravinder Kumar Arora, 342 ITR 38 (Del) iii) CIT vs Kamal Wahal, 351 ITR 4 (Del) iv) N.Ram Kumar vs ACIT, 79 DTR Trib 386 (Hyd) v) Smt. A Tamil Ponni order dated 25.2.2020 in ITA No.3112/Chn/2019 vi) ITAT 'F' Delhi in Shri Ramphal Hooda in ITA No.8478/Del/2019 dated 2.3.2020. 6. Hon'ble A.P High Court in the case of Late Mir Gulam Ali Khan (supra) held as under: "Relying upon the expression "assessee" occurring in s. 54 of the Act, it is contended for the Department that in order to claim the exemp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 11 & 12 of its order held as under: "Objective of s. 54F and the like provision such as s. 54 is to provide impetus to the house construction and so long as the purpose of house construction is achieved, such hyper technicality should not impede the way of deduction which the legislature has allowed. Purposive construction is to be preferred as against the literal construction, more so when even literal construction also does not say that the house should be purchased in the name of the assessee only. Sec. 54F of the Act is the beneficial provision which should be interpreted liberally in favour of the exemption/deduction to the taxpayer and deduction should not be denied on hyper technical ground. Andhra Pradesh High Court in the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ht to our notice a similar view of this Court in CIT Vs. Ravinder Kumar Arora : (2012) 342 ITR 38 (Del.). That was also a case which arose under Section 54F of the Act. The new residential property was acquired in the joint names of the assessee and his wife. The income tax authorities restricted the deduction under Section 54F to 50 percent 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 constr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bution from the assessee's wife." 9. Ld DR placing strong reliance on the findings recorded by the authorities below submitted that the assessee has not purchased any property in his name and that exemption u/s.54F cannot be allowed to the assessee even if he purchases residential unit by utilizing the money received against sale of land for purchase of residential unit in the name of his wife and son. 10. When we analyse the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ravinder Kumar Arora (supra), we find that Sec. 54F of the Act is the beneficial provision which should be interpreted liberally in favour of the exemption/deduction to the taxpayer and deduction should not be denied on hyper technical ground. Similarly, Andhra ....