TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (2) TMI 635
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xemption U/s. 54 of the Act because the assessee has purchased the new residential house property in the name of her husband out of the sale proceeds of her erstwhile residential property. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a non-resident Indian who had earned income from long term capital gains during the relevant assessment year. The assessee has not filed her return of income for the relevant AY 2008-09. Subsequently, it was revealed that the assessee has sold her residential house property vide Doc. No. 1708, dated 18/4/2007 for sale consideration of Rs. 62,90,000/-. Thereafter, notice U/s. 148 was issued and the case was taken up for scrutiny. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was stated by the asses....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... CIT vs. V. Natarajan [2006] 154 Taxman 399 (Mad.) (iii) CIT vs. Kamal Wahal [2013] 30 Taxmann.com 34 (Delhi) and (iv) CIT vs. Ravinder Kumar Arora [2011] 15 Taxmann.com 307 (Delhi). 5. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, relied on the orders of the ld. Revenue Authorities. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the materials on record and the decisions cited by the Ld. AR. On the plain reading of the decisions cited by the Ld. AR hereinabove, we find merit in the case of the assessee. The gist of the decisions cited by the Ld. AR are cited herein below for reference:- (1) CIT vs. V. Natarajan [2006] 154 Taxman 399 (Mad.)/[2006] 287 ITR 271 (Mad.): For the assessment year 1990-91 the Assessing Officer disallowed e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Tribunal had recorded a pure finding of fact that the land in question was purchased out of the sale proceeds of the agricultural land which was used only for agricultural purposes and merely because the assessee's son was shown in the sale deed as co-owner, it did not make any difference. It was not the case of the Revenue that the land in question was exclusively used by his son. Therefore, the assessee was entitled to deduction U/s. 54B. CIT vs. Kamal Wahal [2013] 30 Taxmann.com 34 (Delhi) Facts * The assessee sold his joint property which gave rise to proportionate capital gains. He claimed deduction under section 54F by investing sale proceeds in acquisition of vacant plot and purchase of a residential house in the name of hi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... new residential house need not be purchased by the assessee in his own name nor is it necessary that it should be purchased exclusively in his name. It is moreover to be noted that the assessee in the present case has not purchased the new house in the name of a stranger or somebody who is unconnected with him. He has purchased it only in the name of his wife. There is also no dispute that the entire investment has come out of the sale proceeds and that there was no contribution from the assessee's wife. [Para 9] * The substantial question of law is answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. [Para 10] (3) CIT vs. Ravinder Kumar Arora [2011] 15 Taxmann.com 307 (Delhi) FACTS During the relevant assessment year, t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the registration of the sale deed of the house so purchased and has also paid commission and legal expenses in connection with the purchase of the house. The Tribunal further records that whole of the purchase consideration has been paid by the assessee and not even a single penny has been contributed by the wife in the purchase of the house. The Tribunal also noted the argument that the property was purchased by the assessee in the joint name with his wife for 'shagun' purpose and because of the fact that the assessee was physically handicapped. The Tribunal further concludes that as a matter of fact, the assessee was the real owner of the residential house in question. [Para 8] On the aforesaid facts, the conditions stipulated ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-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. Section 54F is the beneficial provision which should be interpreted liberally in favour of the exemption/deduction to the tax-payer and deduction should not be denied on hyper-technical ground. The word 'assessee' must be given wide and liberal interpretation so as to include his legal heirs also. There is no warrant for giving too strict an interpretation to the word 'assessee' as that would frustrate the object of granting exemption.....