TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (5) TMI 1404
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of assessee under Section 54F of the Act in the light of law laid down by Delhi High Court in 'CIT Vs. GITA DUGGA', (2013) 257 CTR (DEL.) 208. The Tribunal has failed to adjudicate the grounds raised by the assessee in her appeal. The impugned order therefore, cannot be sustained in the eye of law. It is accordingly quashed. The matter is remitted to the tribunal to decide the appeal preferred by the assessee as well as the revenue afresh in accordance with law laid down by this Court in NAVIN JOLLY, GITA DUGGAL, M. GEORGE JOSEPH, M/S. JENNIFER BHIDE AND KAMALA WAHAL supra. It is therefore, not necessary for us to answer the substantial questions of law." We notice that the Hon'ble High Court has directed the Tribunal to decide the appeals afresh. 3. At the time of hearing, both the parties admitted that the tax effect involved in the appeal filed by the revenue is below the monetary limit as prescribed by the CBDT in its circular No.17/2019 dated 8.8.2019. Accordingly, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed in limine. 4. The only issue urged in the appeal of the assessee relates to partial rejection of deduction claimed u/s 54F of the Income-tax Act,1961 ['the Act....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Rs.30,66,252.00 Material purchased and supplied by the assessee Rs.7,89,677.00 Cost of registration of land on 24.02.2007 Rs.3.77,540.00 Other costs Rs.8,98,421.00 Total cost Rs.1,72,29,993.00 8. The A.O. examined the cost of purchase of property furnished to him and noticed that the assessee could not furnish evidence with regard to the expenses incurred on interiors, etc. Accordingly, the A.O. held that the cost of acquisition should be taken as Rs.91,57,683/- only as given below:- 1. Cost of land vide sale deed dt 24.2.2007 - Rs.39,69,933.00 2. Cost of construction vide agreement dt.5.5.2004 - Rs.46,35,210.00 3. Common maintenance charges vide clause 8(b)&(d) - Rs. 1,75,000.00 4. Cost of registration of land on 24.2.2007 - Rs. 3,77,540.00 Total cost of acquisition - Rs.91,57,683.00 9. The A.O. also examined the claim of the assessee for deduction u/s 54F of the Act. The A.O. took the view that the assessee is not eligible for deduction u/s 54F of the Act for the following reasons:- 1. The assessee has already held 50% share in the Prestige Ozone building and hence, there was no necessity for her to pay the f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al buildings and hence, the condition prescribed in section 54F of the Act is violated. (b) The AO reiterated that the assessee has given advance for purchase of a flat at Prestige Nottingghill, which is a violation of the one of the conditions prescribed in sec. 54F of the Act. Hence the assessee is not eligible for deduction. (c) The AO accepted the fact that the sale consideration of Rs.26.75 lakhs was assessed in the hands of the assessee's son. 13. In the reply to the remand report, the assessee submitted that the assessing officer is taking the view that there are three residential house properties in Ooty for the first time. It was submitted that it is a single building having three units in ground floor, 1st and 2nd Floor. The assessee also submitted that she has furnished bills for interior works to the maximum extent possible and she could not furnish evidences to the extent of Rs.16,97,098/- , which agreed for disallowance. 14. The Ld. CIT(A) after considering the remand report as well as the reply given by the assessee to the remand report gave his decision as under:- a) The residential flat located at Ooty is a single residential building consisted....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of Rs.81,71,910/- incurred on the new house property for computing deduction u/s 54F of the Act. (b) Whether Ld CIT(A) was justified in holding that the assessee is entitled to claim deduction to the extent of 50% of the cost of acquisition computed by him. 17. From the facts discussed above, we noticed that the agreement for the purchase of property was first entered by the assessee's husband in 2004. However the sale agreement for transfer of plot was registered only on 24.2.2007 and it was registered in the name of the assessee and her husband. Accordingly, the AO/Ld CIT(A) has taken the view that the assessee was already entitled to 50% of the right in the property. The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court has held in the case of Mrs. Jennifer Bhide (2011)(15 taxmann.com 82)(Kar) that the deduction u/s 54 of the Act should not be denied merely because the name of assessee's husband is mentioned in the purchase document, when the entire purchase consideration has flown from the assessee. In the instant case also, the plot was purchased in the name of the assessee and her husband. Hence, what is required to be examined is the question, viz., who has funded the acquisition?. ....