Case Law Details
Shri Vivek Jain Vs. DCIT (ITAT Jaipur)
Through the span of evaluation procedures, the assessee had been expected showing cause why the reported u/s 54F of this Act, 1961 may not be disallowed, since the home wasn’t owned within the title of assessee. In reaction, the assessee presented that the consideration for such home had been given out of payment of advance of the assessee received from Narvik Nirman & Financiars Pvt. Ltd. also it had been further submitted that the latest house that is residential not be bought by the assessee inside the very own title nor is it necessary so it must certanly be bought exclusively inside the name.
It had been submitted that the assessee has not yet bought the brand new home in the title of the complete stranger and whole investment has arrived out from the way to obtain the assessee and there is no share through the assessee’s spouse. The distribution associated with the assessee had been considered although not discovered acceptable towards the Assessing Officer. The property which was sold was belonging to the assessee whereas the reinvestment in property (residential house) has been made in the name of Smt as per Assessing Officer. Nikita Jain, spouse regarding the assessee.
It had been further held because of the AO that Smt. Nikita Jain, spouse of this assessee, is having her PAN and filing her return of earnings that is additionally examined to income tax, consequently, according to income tax provisions, spouse and spouse both could not be regarded as solitary entity plus the good thing about investment produced by a person assessee is not fond of another assessee that is individual.
The AO further drawn mention of the conditions of Section 54F associated with Act and held that to claim deduction, the investment in brand new asset should always be into the title of assessee himself. It had been further held because of the AO that in lack of the non-public stability sheet of this assessee and lack of appropriate documentary evidence, it can’t be ascertained whether assessee will not obtain one or more domestic household, except that brand brand brand new asset, from the date of transfer regarding the initial asset. Consequently, of these two reasons, the claim regarding the assessee u/s 54F for the I.T.Act, 1961 had been disallowed.
Contention of Appellant
Assessee contends that buy of an innovative new house that is residential become bought by the assessee. But, it isn’t especially needed underneath the statutory legislation that your house ought to be bought within the title of assessee just. It had been further contended that liberal construction should really be directed at conditions of section 54F for the Act and in case substantive requirement are fulfilled, advantage issued by the Parliament really should not be removed for tiny and inconsistencies that are irrelevant.
Further, the assessee put reliance in the choice of Honorable Delhi tall Court in the event of CIT vs. Kamal Wahal (351 ITR 4), wherein, within the context of section 54F for the Act and buy of household into the name of assessee’s spouse, it absolutely was held that this new residential household need not be bought because of the assessee in the title neither is it necessary it must certanly be bought and solely inside the title.
Further, reliance ended up being added to your choice of Honorable Madras tall Court in the event of CIT vs. V. Natarajan (287 ITR 271) where in actuality the home had been bought when you look at the name for the assessee’s spouse, deduction under part 54 ended up being permitted.
Further, reliance ended up being positioned on your decision of Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the event of belated Gulam Ali Khan vs. CIT (165 ITR 228) wherein when you look at the context of area 54 associated with the Act, it had been held that the phrase ‘assessee’ must certanly be offered an extensive and liberal interpretation therefore as to incorporate his appropriate heirs additionally.
Further, reliance ended up being put on your choice of Honorable Karnataka tall Court into the full instance of DIT vs. Mrs. Jennifer Bhide (349 ITR 80) wherein it had been held that where in actuality the consideration that is entire flown from her spouse, just because in a choice of the purchase deed or into the bond, her husband’s title can also be mentioned, the assessee can’t be rejected the main benefit of deduction u/s 54 and 54EC associated with Act.
Further, reliance ended up being put on your choice of Honorable Delhi High Court in the event of CIT vs. Ravinder Kumar Arora (342 ITR 38) wherein into the context of section 54F for the Act, it absolutely was held that where in fact the assessee has included the name of their spouse as well as the home happens to be purchased jointly into the names, it could maybe maybe not make a difference therefore the conditions stipulated in section stand that is 54F.
Held by ITAT
Hon’ble Rajasthan tall Court in case there is Sh. Mahadev Balai vs. ITO (D.B. ITA No. 136/2017 & others 07.11.2017 that is dated wherein within the context of section 54B, it had been held that in which the investment is created into the title associated with spouse, the assessee will be eligible for claim of deduction u/s 54B of the Act.
In light of appropriate idea so laid straight down because of the Honorable Rajasthan tall Court in case there is Mahadev Balai (supra), where in fact the investment within the brand new home home has flown through the assessee, that will be perhaps not in dispute into the instant instance, just given that this new domestic home home was bought by the assessee within the title of their spouse, exactly the same can not be basis sexybrides.org/asian-brides legit when it comes to denial of deduction stated u/s 54F of this Act.