TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (12) TMI 901
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onfirming the action of the AO by which he has disallowed the claim of deduction u/s. 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter in short "the Act") of Rs. 44,27,994/- and added the same to the total income of the assessee. 3. The brief facts as noted by the AO are that the assessee didn't file his Return of income (RoI) for AY 2012-13, but he (AO) received information from the ITS Data that assessee had deposited cash into his UCO bank account to the tune of Rs. 19,75,000/-, during the relevant year. Hence, he re-opened the assessment and issued notice u/s. 148 of the Act dated 27.03.2018, pursuant to which assessee filed his RoI admitting total income of Rs. 2,92,100/-. The AO noted that assessee has sold an immovable property during t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is also assessed to tax separately. Hence, he held that the assessee's claim of exemption u/s. 54F of the Act on account of purchase of property in his wife's name is not allowable and therefore, he disallowed the deduction claimed u/s. 54F of the Act to the tune of Rs. 44,27,994/- and added it to the total income of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) who dismissed the same. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 6. Assailing the action of the Ld.CIT(A), the Ld.AR pointed out that the Ld.CIT(A) erred in not following the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. V. Natarajan [2006] 287 ITR 271 and instead has followed the decision of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessment and issued notice u/s. 148 of the Act dated 27.03.2018. Pursuant to which assessee filed his RoI admitting total income of Rs. 2,92,100/-. And the AO noted that assessee has sold an immovable property during the relevant year for consideration of Rs. 50,40,000/- which was received in cash and that sale proceeds has been deposited into his and his wife's bank account. Further, he noted that the assessee has claimed a deduction of Rs. 44,27,994/- being the capital gain investment into residential property purchased in his wife's name. Therefore, the AO issued show cause notice to the assessee 'as to why' he should not treat the deduction claimed u/s. 54F to the tune of Rs. 44,27,984/- as Long Term Capital Gain of the assessee for AY ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cument showing sale of immovable property by her husband during the F.Y. 2011-12 etc. And the AO verified the details furnished by assessee's wife and found that the assessee's husband sold three properties for consideration of Rs. 50,40,000/- and received sale proceeds in cash and the AO accepted the assessee's wife's contentions, and completed the assessment by order dated 18.11.2019 by accepting the income returned as under:- Total income returned Rs. 98,010/- Income Tax thereon: NIL 9. Thus, considering the over-all facts, we are of the opinion that assessee's claim of deduction u/s. 54F of the Act ought to have been granted to assessee as held by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Natarajan (supra) though ....