TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (9) TMI 1326
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y, New Delhi, ('Delhi Property') comprising of the entire second floor and 50% of the share of the terrace above the third floor along with 20% undivided, indivisible and impartible ownership rights in the said plot of land was sold by the petitioner herein for a sale consideration of Rs. 2 Crores. He states that balance 50% share of the terrace above the third floor which was owned by his brother, Sh. Parkash Keshwani, was sold by the said brother for Rs. 5 Lakhs. He states that the sale consideration of Rs. 2 Crores was received by the petitioner and the buyer deducted 1% Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) on the said sale consideration. He states that petitioner declared the receipt of the said amount of Rs. 2 Crores as Long Term Capital Gain ('LTCG') in his Income Tax Return ('ITR') for AY 2015-16. He states that subsequently on 01st June, 2015, the petitioner purchased a new property situated at Sector-31-32A, Gurugram, Haryana ('New Property') for a total consideration of Rs. 2,54,20,000/- jointly with his wife Mrs. Rekha Keswani. He states that the entire sale consideration in respect of the purchase of the New Property was paid from petitioner's bank account. He also states that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d to him reads as under:- "Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny for AY 2015-16 and scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, completed at the assessed income of Rs. 34,62,000/-. Subsequently, during the audit it was pointed that the assessee has sold a residential house at B-83, Defence Colony, New Delhi (entire 2nd floor and entire terrace above 3rd floor along with 20% undivided, indivisible and impartible ownership rights in the said plot of land) for Rs. 2,05,00,000/- dated 25/02/2015. Out of this sum, Rs. 5,00,000/- has been paid to Sh. Parkash Keshwani (brother of assessee) for the sale of 50% share of entire terrace above third floor and balance Rs. 2,00,00,000/- has been paid to Mr. Kamlesh Keshwani (the assessee) which he has declared as LTCG in its ITR. Later on, the assessee purchased a new house at 157, sector-31-32A, Gurgaon for Rs. 2,54,20,000/- on 26/05/2015 jointly with his wife Mrs. Rekha Keshwani. Here, it is to be noted that the new property has been purchased in the name of Mr. Kamlesh Keshwani and Mrs. Rekha Keshwani jointly with the first name in the property of Mrs. Rekha Keshwani. Further, neither the shareholding patter....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ot be reviewed. 7. Issue notice. Mr. Abhishek Maratha, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Revenue accepts notice. He states that there is no dispute with respect to the facts set out in the writ petition. He states that, since admittedly the new property has been purchased in the joint names of the petitioner and his wife, there was an objection raised in the Audit with respect to the LTCG claim. 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The sale of the residential house by the petitioner and purchase of the New Property by the petitioner within the stipulated time is admitted by Revenue. It is further admitted that the entire sale consideration for the New Property as well as the stamp duty has been paid by the petitioner. 9. The respondent has not disputed that this information was available and scrutinised by the AO during the assessment proceedings which resulted in the assessment order dated 07th November, 2017, and the AO was satisfied with respect to the claim of the LTCG of the petitioner. The judgment of this Court in Ravinder Kumar Arora (supra) relied upon by the petitioner as regards his entitlement to claim LTCG is squarely applicable to the facts of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... stipulate that the house should be purchased in the name of the assessee only. Here is a case where the house was purchased by the assessee and that too in his name and wife's name was also included additionally. Such inclusion of the name of the wife for the above-stated peculiar factual reason should not stand in the way of the deduction legitimately accruing to the assessee. The objective of section 54F and the like provision, such as section 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. Section 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. 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 ....