TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (9) TMI 1892
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s India Ltd. and earned income during the year under consideration under the heads income from salary, capital gain and other sources. Assessee filed his return of income for A.Y. 2013-14 on 30.07.2013, declaring total income of Rs. 2,46,64,570/-. The return was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act and thereafter the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. Statutory notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and served upon the assessee. Assessee's representative Mr. Suresh Rathod, ITP filed the details called for during the assessment proceedings. (ii) After considering the submissions made by the assessee, learned assessing officer noticed that during the year under consideration, assessee sold two house properties, one at Chennai and the other at Bangalore. The property at Chennai was sold for a net consideration of Rs. 1.55Cr vide agreement dated 27.09.2012 and assessee claimed cost of improvement of Rs. 25,00,000/- and brokerage of Rs. 3,48,316/-. However, learned assessing officer disallowed the deductions for want of documentary evidence. (iii) Learned assessing officer further noticed that the assessee claimed to have incurred a long term capital loss of Rs.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... income of Rs. 2,76,437/- as offered by assessee on Amos-3 and Rs. 64,680/- as notional rental income on Amos-5, as income from house property. 3. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 31.03.2016, assessee preferred first appeal before learned CIT(A), who dismissed assessee's appeal. 4. Aggrieved by the impugned order, assessee has preferred this second appeal raising following grounds: "I) The Ld. CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming the disallowance of claim made u/s 48 towards "cost of improvement" of Rs. 25,00,000/- and "brokerage" of Rs. 3,48,316 incurred on the Chennai property, without giving any finding on the same, and without considering the details filled before it. II) The Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in disallowing the claim made for "cost of acquisition/construction" duly indexed of Rs. 1,22,66,598/- on Sale of Bangalore property, being difference of Rs. 1,78,33,204 claimed and Rs. 55,66,606/- allowed by AO, without giving cogent reasons to allow a part sum as cost. III) The Ld. CIT (Appeals) erred in disallowing the exemption claimed u/s 54 of Rs. 39,08,139/- for investment made in 2 flats in Mumbai. The CIT(A) erred in rejecting the claim o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....transpires from the perusal of the assessment order that no documentary evidence in respect of the details with regard to the actual indexed cost of Bangalore property (Amos5) was submitted by the assessee during the assessment proceedings. This made the assessing officer to treat the cost of acquisition at Rs. 36,00,000/- on the basis of purchase agreement. This apart, learned assessing officer found that the assessee declared the consideration received on sale of Bangalore property (Amos5) to be 1.25 Cr, whereas the agreement value was only Rs. 80,00,000/-. Such ambiguities were also not met out even before the first appellate authority. We direct appellant / assessee to submit required details in respect of the actual indexed cost of Bangalore property (Amos5) before the assessing officer. We accordingly restore this ground to the file of learned assessing officer for determination of the indexation cost of acquisition of Bangalore property (Amos-5) after considering the submissions and evidence adduced by the assessee and pass order in accordance with law. The ground no. 2 is determined accordingly. 12. The small issue needs to be answered in the third ground of assessee's a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r husband. c) Kamlesh Keswani vs. ACIT W.P.(C) 13713/2022, CM APPL. 41874/2022 & CM APPL. 41875/2022 (Delhi HC)-Followed the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ravinder Kumar Arora, MANU/DE/7363/2011:[2011] 15 taxmann.com 307 (Delhi) d) CIT vs. Sh. Mahadev Balai, ITA 136/2017 (Raj HC)-The Hon'ble High Court allowed exemption u/s 54B of the Act for investment made by the assessee in the name of his wife. e) Shankar Lal Kumawat vs. ITO MANU/11/0270/2020: 125 taxmann.com 347 (Jaipur-Trib.)-The assessee sold a residential house and invested sale consideration in purchase of a plot of land and carried out construction of a residential house thereon. The Hon'ble ITAT held that mere fact that investment in new property was made in name of his wife could not be a reason for disallowance of deduction under section 54 to assessee. f) N Ram Kumar v. ACIT MANU/IH/0206/2012: [2012] 25 taxmann.com 337 (Hyd. ITAT)-The assessee purchased a flat in the name of her minor daughter and claimed deduction u/s 54F. The exemption was allowed by Hon'ble ITAT. g) Krishnappa Jayaramaiah vs. ITO-MANU/IL/0059/2021: [2021] 125 taxmann.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....10/Ind/2023, Siddhulal Patidar V Income Tax Officer, reported in MANU/II/0037/2024, wherein ratio of Kamal Wahal (supra), ITA No.188/2016, PCIT vs. Balmukund Meena (M.P. High Court) and V. Natarajan (supra) has been followed. 17. Learned representative for the assessee, fairly referred Prakash V Income Tax Officer, MANU/MH/0825/2008, wherein Hon'ble Jurisdictional Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) framed three substantial questions of law. The relevant third question was as to whether for qualifying exemption under Section 54 of the I.T. Act, is it necessary and obligatory to have investment made in residential house in the name of assessee only or investment in residential house is enough to qualify and claim the said exemption? Hon'ble Court answered this question in affirmative. The relevant paragraphs 12 to 17 read as under: "12. It is, therefore, clear that the purpose is to give this benefit on the ownership of one residential house only by the assessee and to encourage to have one residential house of the assessee. Therefore, right from the sale of original asset till the purchase and/or construction of the residential house i.e. the "new asset", the ownership and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the house and purchase of another house are part of the same scheme, the lapse of some time between the sale and purchase makes no difference. The word "assessee" must be given a wide and liberal interpretation so as to include his legal heirs also. There is no warrant for giving too strict an interpretation to the word "assessee" as that would frustrate the object of granting the exemption and what is more, in the instant case, the very same assessee immediately after the sale of the house, entered into an agreement for purchasing another house and paid a sum of Rs. 1,000 as earnest money and subsequently the legal representative completed the transaction within a period of one year from the date of the death of the deceased. The sale and purchase are two links in the same chain. We are fortified in this view by a decision of the Madras High Court in C.V. Ramanathan v. CIT [1980] 124 ITR 191." We are not inclined to accept the liberal view to the word "assessee" in Late Mir Gulam Ali Khan (supra) for the reason already recorded in the above paras. The Scheme of Section 54F is clear. The facts are different here. 15. The deceased assessee admittedly sold and pu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assessee has to be in his own name and not in the name of any other person. The legal consequences of purchase of the new asset by assessee in the name of his son is to constitute his son as the beneficial owner of the new asset. The assessee has, therefore, not made the investment in this name. Therefore, he has rendered himself liable to pay tax on capital gains arising out of the transfer of a capital asset. 9. ..... 10. In all the above case, it will be significant to note that the issue was never regarding purchase of the new asset in the name of other person. Death during the period within which the new asset had to be acquired was an intervening event in some cases. The distinction between a legal heir and an heir apparent in law is very significant. An heir apparent succeeding to the estate of a prepositus is dependent on the fact of his surviving the prepositus. Death is a certain event but who will die first is not a certain event. This is the reason why law regards transfer by a heir apparent of his chance of succession as non transferable under section 6 of the Transfer of Property Act. 11. .....In the present case, the assessee has ....