TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (7) TMI 1925
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r going through the reasons for delay so filed by the assessee, I am satisfied that there was a reasonable cause. Accordingly, I condone the delay and the appeal of the assessee is being heard on merit. 3.1 The only grievance of the assessee relates to disallowance of deduction u/s 54 of the Act in respect of capital gains earned by the assessee. 3.2 The facts in brief are that the assessee is an individual and is earning income from other sources. The assessee filed his return of income for the Assessment Year 2014-15 declaring total income of Rs. 22,390/- on 25-07-2014. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 28-10-2016 at a total income of Rs. 17,91,130/-. The assessee during the relevant previous year had s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vestments made in the name of nephew. 3.3 By impugned order, the ld. CIT(A) after placing reliance on the judgement of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Kalya vs CIT (2012) 22 Taxmann.cocm 67 (Raj) confirmed the order of the AO and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 3.4 It was contended by the ld.AR of the assessee that the deduction u/s 54 of the Act should be allowed for residential house purchased in the name of brother/ nephew. He further submitted that it is nowhere mentioned u/s 54 of the Act that the investment made in new residential house shall be in the name of the assessee only. The only requirement is to utilize the sale proceeds of the property sold in buying new properties. The ld.AR further submitted that l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ustification in the AO's action, in so far entire investment was made by the assessee and only for the safety reason he has included the name of his brother. I found that in the assessment order itself at page 2, the AO has observed that entire cot of new property was borne by the assessee though the property is in the joint name with his brother. 9. Under these facts and circumstances, there is no justification for giving 50% benefit of investment in the new house. The issue is also covered by the decision of hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Ravinder Kumar Arora [2012] 342 ITR 38/[2011] 203 Taxman 289/15 taxmann.com 307 (Delhi) wherein High Court held that the assessee was entitled to full exemption u/s. 54F when th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... The Tribunal also noted the argument that the property was purchased by the assessee in the joint names 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. 10. On the aforesaid facts, we are of the view that the conditions stipulated in section 54F stand fulfilled. It would be treated as the property purchased by the assessee in his name and merely because he has included the name of his wife and the property purchased in the joint names would not make any difference. Such a conduct has to be, rather, encouraged which gives empowerment to women. There are vari....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h should be interpreted liberally in favour of the exemption/deduction to the taxpayer and deduction should not be denied on hyper technical ground. The Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Late Mir Gulam Ali Khan v. CIT [1987] 165 ITR 228 (AP) has held that the object of granting exemption under section 54 of the Act is that an assessee who sells a residential house for purchasing another house must be given exemption so far as capital gains are concerned. 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. '' 10. This decision of the De....