2025 (9) TMI 851

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ut appreciating material on records. 3. That the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance of exemption amounting to Rs. 2442775/- claimed u/s. 54 of the Act in respect of LTCG for investment on the construction of the house. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in rejecting the report of the Valuer in support of the construction of the house for claim of exemption u/s. 54 of the Act. 5. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in dismissing the appeal of the appellant. 2. Briefly stated, facts are that assessee sold immovable property amounting to Rs. 1,82,65,000/- during the financial year 2014-15 relevant to assessment year 2015-16, but did not file return of income. On....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s Tribunal. 4. At the time of hearing, Ld. AR has submitted that during the FY 2014-15 relevant to assessment year 2015-16, Shri Yogendera Singh, husband of Smt. Urmila Devi (assessee) made investment of Rs. 1,50,50,000/- on the construction of the house in which Urmila Devi (assessee)'s 1/3rd share comes to Rs. 50,16,667/- and her 1/3rd share in LTCG comes of Rs. 24,58,975/- (1/3rd of Rs. 73,76,927). After giving exemption u/s. 54 of the Act for the investment made on the construction of house, hence, there will be NIL Capital Gain in the hands of the assessee (Smt. Urmila Devi). It was submitted that if the property was held only in the name of husband of assessee and LTCG was invested in the name of wife or vice versa, the benefit of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... as income in the return of income filed by her husband. Under income tax law, the assessee is a different assessee from her husband and each assessee is duty bound to offer his/her income separately and this legal obligation cannot be escaped on the ground that income of one assessee was offered by his/her spouse unless such clubbing is allowed by law. The assessee has not brought anything on record to establish that capital gain earned by her can be clubbed with income of her husband. Hence, the contention of the assessee that capital gain was offered by her husband and she is not liable to pay any capital gain is not tenable, therefore, the same was rightly been rejected by the lower authorities. AO rightly held that the appellant is lia....