AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (1) TMI 603
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....missioner of Income Tax, in so far as it is against the appellant, is contrary to the facts of the case and provisions of law. 2. The Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax is not justified in sustaining the disallowance of Rs 46,20,000/- exemption U/ s.54F of the Income Tax Act. 3. The Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax is not justified in holding that the appellant is not entitled to the deduction as the house constructed stands in the name of the appellant's son. 4. The Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax should have appreciated that the appellant did show the investment as house in his Balance Sheet and that his intention is to acquire a house for living, though in the name of his son. 5. The Hon'ble Commissioner ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for scrutiny and accordingly notice u/s 143(2) of the Act dt.14.08.2018 was issued requiring the assessee to furnish the details. After verification of the information submitted by the assessee, Assessing Officer had completed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act on 23.12.2019 interalia by making an addition of Rs.46,20,000/- towards capital gain. 4. Feeling aggrieved with the order of Assessing Officer, assessee carried the matter before ld.CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal of assessee. 5. Feeling aggrieved with the order of ld.CIT(A), assessee is now in appeal before us. 6. Before us, ld. AR submitted that while filing the appeal, assessee had inadvertently omitted to raise a ground against the action of the Assessing Officer in expandi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the assessee on account of cash deposits Rs.26,35,000/- in his bank account during demonetization period. The assessee during the assessment proceedings had explained that he had sold the agricultural land for a consideration of Rs.75,62,500/- during the A.Y. 2017-18 and he provided the details of payment received by him through cheques and a sum of Rs.25,62,500/- in cash after taking back the dishonoured cheque and further submitted that the assessee had deposited an amount of Rs.26,35,000/- in his bank account at Bank of Baroda. After receiving the scrutiny notice, the assessee had explained the cash deposits and had also claimed deduction under section 54F in response to the notice received by him. The Assessing Officer had denied the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... gains from sale of immovable property. In our view, the Assessing Officer was within his right to examine the issue before us and we do not find any fault on the part of Assessing Officer to deny the deduction of Rs.46,20,000/- in the case selected for limited scrutiny. 10. On perusal of the order of ld.CIT(A), it is clear that the reasoning given by the ld.CIT(A) is in line of the law laid down by the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Ganta Vijaya Lakshmi Vs. ITO, Ward - 1(3), Vijayawada reported in (2015) 54 taxmann.com 301 (A.P. High Court). For the completeness of the record, we are reproducing the relevant finding of the ld.CIT(A) mentioned at Para 6 to the following effect : "6. Decision: In the instant case; the appellan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... decisions. The decisions relied upon by the appellant of M/ s. B. Surendra Choudary of Hon'ble Telangana and AP High Court and Kamal Wahal of Hon'ble Delhi High Court pertain to the investment in the name of wife and further the case law of N. Ram Kumar Vs. ACIT of the jurisdictional Hon'ble ITAT deals with the issue of minor. In the present case, the investment is not made in the name of wife or minor son or daughter but in the name of adult son (as .the income of the minor attracts clubbing provision and also the execution of the agreement cannot be done by minor. The decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Late Gulam Ali Khan was rendered on 17.12.1984 and in that case it was seen. that appellant had entered....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Ali Khan, 'the Income Tax Act does not allow any room for wider interpretation The decisi8n in the case of Prakash Vs ITO rendered by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court on 12th September, 2008 in ITA No.15/2002 by considering the proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court is as under ............................................ ........................................... The decision of the Hon'ble High Court in the case of Mir Gulam Ali Khan has been distinguished based on facts and also it was rendered for the purposes of section 54 of the Act and not section 54F of the Act and was under peculiar circumstances of the case of the demise of the appellant who had invested in the house but passed away before that and the leg....