TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 703
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....100 (Circle Rate Rs. 51,73,925/-) as per section 50C of the Act. As the land sold was capital asset and no income from capital gain was shown in the return from transaction of immoveable property, notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 06.01.2014 was issued for escapement of income. The assessee filed reply dated 26.02.2014 stating that return filed by him on 30.07.2009 may be treated as filed under Section 148 of the Act. Notices under Section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire were issued. Shri Deepak Gupta, CA/AR attended proceedings, filed replies and relevant material. On completion of assessment proceeding, Ld. AO passed order dated 17.03.2015 by making addition of Rs. 14,05,500/- Rs. 37,090/- and Rs. 50,31,150/-. 3. Against order dated 17.03.2015 of Ld. AO, the appellant/assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) which was dismissed vide order dated 29.03.2016. 4. Being aggrieved, appellant/assessee preferred present appeal with following grounds: "1. That the Learned CIT(A) is wrong and unjustified in not allowing exemption u/s 54F in respect of all the three houses-one in the name of appellant and two in the name of son, constructe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he different officer and the assessment was completed by the different officer is illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction. Admittedly, the issue is neither raise by the assessee before the assessing officer or the CIT (A), the same has been raised by the assessee, for the first time before the Hon'ble Tribunal, as these legal grounds and goes into the roots of matter, in view of decision of Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of National Thermal Power Corporation Limited Vs. CIT, 229 ITR 383 (SC). 7. Learned Authorized Representative for the appellant/assessee submitted that the assessment order passed by the non-jurisdictional officer is illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction and the re-assessment proceedings has been initiated by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Saharanpur by issuing the notice U/s 148 on dated 06.01.2014 and also recorded reason to believe, that, income has escaped assessment. Thereafter, the whole re-assessment proceedings has been conducted by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Saharanpur, whereas, the assessment order U/s 147/143(3) dated 17.03.2015 was passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Saharanpur, which is illegal, bad in law and withou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of CIT(A) at Page No.26 to 30 of the CIT (A) Order) :- (i) That, the investment was made construction of two houses, in the name of his only son Shri Aftab Alam. (ii) That, the construction of three house has been claimed by the assessee, which are situated at different places and are not adjacent to each other and as such all three house are separate unit, not as one unit. (ⅲ)That, the assessee has not deposited, in the capital gain scheme before date of filing of ITR U/s 139(1) of the ACT, ie. why he is restricted the exemption at Rs. 7,20,000.00 against the claim of the assessee of Rs. 14,40,000.00 invested, in the construction of the house in his own name. f) That, being aggrieved the order of CIT (A), the assessee has filed an appeal before your Hon'ble Court. The CIT (A) has erred in not allowing the exemption of U/s 54F of the ACT without considering the following facts and decision of Hon'ble Court as relied below :- (i) That, the assessee has purchased the land, in name of his son, when he was minor and constructed the house by the sale proceed of the property in his name, which means, total investment was made by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion 54. The same decision has also followed by the ITAT, in the following cases :- (a) Smt. S. M. Shoba Vs. ITO, In ITA No.1955/Bang/2019 dated 30.03.2022 page no.65 to 78. (b) Shri Haider Noman Kohrakiwala Vs. ACIT, In ITA No.2367/Bang2019 dated 13.10.2020 page no.79 to 86. (c) Mrs. Seema Sabharwal Vs. ITO, In ITA No.272/Chd/2017 dated 05.02.2018 page no.87 to 98. (vi) That, in the instance case, there is no dispute, that, the total sale proceed has been invested in the construction of new houses and the Hon'ble High Court, the CIT Vs. Sambandam Udaykumar reported in 251 CTR 371 took the view that, once it is demonstrated that the consideration received on transfer of capital asset has been invested in or construction of residential house, even through the construction is not completed in all respect as required under law, assessee cannot be denied benefit under section 54F. In view of the above submission, it is clear that all the allegation made by the (A) are fully covered, in the favor of the assessee by the decision of Hon'ble art, hence, the exemption claimed by the assessee U/s 54F need to be allowed". 9. Learned Auth....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....acquired in the joint names of the assessee and his wife. The income tax authorities restricted the deduction under Section 54F to 50% on the footing that the deduction was not available on the portion of the investment which stands in the name of the assessee's wife. This view was disapproved by this Court. It noted that the entire purchase consideration was paid only by the assessee and not a single penny was contributed by the assessee's wife. It also noted that a purposive construction is to be preferred as against a literal construction, more so when even applying the literal construction, there is nothing in the section to show that the house should be purchased in the name of the assessee only. As a matter of fact, Section 54F in terms does not require that the new residential property shall be purchased in the name of the assessee; it merely says that the assessee should have purchased/constructed "a residential house". 8. This Court in the decision cited alone also noticed the judgment of the Madras High Court (supra) and agreed with the same, observing that though the Madras case was decided in relation to Section 54 of the Act, that Section was in pari m....