TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (9) TMI 727
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the spirit of law. The addition of Rs. 20,10,008/- as short-term capital gain without considering the registered govt. approved valuer report, CBDT circular on Jewellery and without referring the matter to DVO is against the spirit of law and need to be quashed. That under the facts and circumstances, the Ld. A.O. and consequently Hon'ble DRP- I grossly erred in law as well on merits in not allowing the full exemption u/s 54 for new residential house purchased by the assessee out of sale consideration and registered in his wife's name only for namesake. The judicial pronouncement as mentioned in the Hon'ble DRP-1 direction was also not followed by the Ld. A.O. The addition of Rs. 80,14,041/- by disallowing the exemption U/s 54 being 50% wife's share in the new house property is totally against the facts, law, and various judicial pronouncements, hence, the addition is patently unsustainable and needs to be deleted." 3. Brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is a non resident having only income from other sources and filed return declaring income of Rs. 1,20,830/-. The case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny through CASS and notices were is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sent Appeal. 6. The Departmental Representative vehemently opposed for condoning the delay of 250 days in filing the present Appeal. 7. We have heard the parties perused the material available on record. As can be seen from the record, the Assessee was before the wrong forum, who was under the impression that the assessment order has to be challenged before the Ld. CIT(A). Moreover, the Assessee has filed the Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) well within the limitation of 30 days and after dismissal of the Appeal by the Ld. CIT(A) as not maintainable, the present Appeal has been filed within 30 days from the date of dismissal of the Appeal by the Ld. CIT(A). Considering the fact that the Assessee was before the wrong forum, which was neither intentional nor deliberate, thus we find that there is a sufficient cause to condone the delay of 250 days. Accordingly, delay in filing the present Appeal is hereby condoned. 8. The Ground No. 1 is general in nature which requires no adjudication. 9. Ground No. 2 is regarding addition made on account of treating Rs. 20,10,008/- as short term capital gain. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the treatment of Long Term Capital Gain ('....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bout the questioning of the said jewellery from the person who has been found with possession of the said jewellery. However, the Board, looking to the Indian customs and traditions, has fairly expressed that jewellery to the said extent will not be seized and once the Board is also of the express opinion that the said jewellery cannot be seized, it should normally mean that any jewellery, found in possession of a married lady to the extent of 500 gms., 250 gms. per unmarried lady and 100 gms. per male member of the family will also not be questioned about its source and acquisition. It is certainly "Stridhan" of the woman and normally no question at least to the said extent can be made. However, if the authorized officers or/and the Assessing Officers, find jewellery beyond the said weight, then certainly they can question the source of acquisition of the jewellery and also in appropriate cases, if no proper explanation has been offered, can treat the jewellery beyond the said limit as unexplained investment of the person with whom the said jewellery has been found." 13. Considering the fact that the jewellery is claimed to be more 30 to 40 years old which were inherited/gifted b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Assessee had deducted the TDS on the entire sale price, which was duly paid to the same to the Government. Apart from the same, the full value of purchase price was also reflected in Form No. 26AS of the Assessee for the year under consideration. It is the case of the Assessee that the wife is dependent of the Assessee and the name of the wife reflected in the sale deed is only for name sake and no consideration was paid by her. The said facts can be corroborated with the bank statement, Form 26AS and the sale deed produced by the Assessee before the Lower Authorities. 18. The Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Simran Bagga vs. ACIT in ITA No. 1786/Del/2023 dated 04/01/2024, considering the fact that the tax payer invested in a new residential house registered in spouse name, it has been ruled on eligibility of income tax deduction u/s 54 of the Act in following manners: "12. On this issue, we are guided by the various orders of the Hon'ble High Courts and the Tribunal which are as under: a) CIT vs. Natarajan, [2006] 287 ITR 271 (Madras HC) - The deduction under section 54 was allowed where the new Simran Bagga residential property was purchased in the nam....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nts that 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/54 of the Act are the beneficial provisions which should be interpreted liberally in favour of the Simran Bagga exemption/deduction to the taxpayer and deduction should not be denied." 19. Further the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ravinder Kumar Arora reported in 342 ITR 38 (Del) wherein it is held as under:- "5. In these circumstances, the instant appeal is filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Act, which we have admitted on the following substantial question of law: "Whether the ITAT was correct in law in granting the exemption u/s 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to the assessee for the whole consideration of Rs. 3,28,15,000/- for the purpose of the new asset (the residential property) in the joint name of the assessee and his wife, and not to the extent of 50% share of the assessee in the new asset?" 6. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, we have heard the matter finally at this stage itself and in ou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by any expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with such transfer." 7. Plain reading of the aforesaid provision indicates that in order to get benefit of this Section, the assessee should, inter alia, "purchase" a house. As per the Revenue, this house has to be purchased in the name of the assessee only and benefit is not given if it is purchased by the assessee jointly with his wife. 8. At the outset, important factual findings recorded by the Tribunal in this case are that it was the assessee who independently invested in the purchase of new residential house though in his own name but along with the name of his wife also and that it was the assessee who paid stamp duty and corporation tax at the time of 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 ....