Allan Emanuel Fernandes, Pune V. Income-Tax Officer,

ITA 2493/PUN/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1636 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-08-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 16-04-2018
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 27-10-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJESH GAWLI
• Assessee Lawyers: R M RAJAPURKAR
• Keywords: Capital asset; Benefit of exemption
• Section: 54F; 54

Judgement Text

- IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, P UNE . , , ! , ' # BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AW ASTHY, JM . / ITA NO.2493/PUN/2016 '% & '& / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 ALLAN EMANUEL FERNANDES, MORES PRODUCTS, B.H. GANDHI HOSPITAL, NIGDI, PUNE-411 044 PAN : AAEPF5478M ....... / APPELLANT (% / V/S. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 9(1), PUNE. / RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI R.M.RAJAPURKAR REVENUE BY : SHRI RAJESH GAWLI / DATE OF HEARING : 23.08.2018 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31.08.2018 ) / ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORD ER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-9, PUNE DATED 27.07.20 16 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. 2. THE SOLITARY ISSUE RAISED IN THE APPEAL IS AGAINST DISALLO WANCE OF EXEMPTION CLAIMED BY ASSESSEE U/S.54F OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 2 ITA NO.2493/PUN/2016 A.Y.2010-11 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) AND THEREBY MAKIN G ADDITION OF RS.33,15,420/- UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAINS. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE AS EMANATING FROM RECORDS ARE: THE ASSESSEE IN THE PERIOD RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 10-11 SOLD IMMOVABLE PROPERTY FOR RS.71 LAKHS AND INVESTED CAPITAL GAINS ARISING THEREFROM FOR PURCHASE OF A NEW CAPITAL ASSET IN THE NAME OF HIS WIFE AN D DAUGHTER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED ASSESSEES CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S . 54F OF THE ACT. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 19.12.2012, THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). T HE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) REJECTED ASSESSEES CONTENTIONS AND CONFIRMED THE FINDINGS OF ASSESSING OFFICER. AGAINST THE ORDER OF FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN SECOND APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 5. SHRI R.M. RAJAPURKAR APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSE E SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE OWNED IMMOVABLE PROPERTY JOINTLY WITH HIS WIFE, MRS. FIONA ALLAN FERNANDES. BOTH OF THEM WERE HAVING 50% EACH SHARE IN THE IMMOVABLE PROPERTY. THE SAID PROPERTY WAS SOLD AND THE E NTIRE CAPITAL GAIN ARISING FROM SALE OF PROPERTY WAS INVESTED FOR PURCHASE OF A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE JOINTLY IN THE NAMES OF ASSESSEES WIFE AND UNMARR IED DAUGHTER. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT ORIGINALLY PROPERTY WAS OWNED BY HIS FATHER IN LA W AND AFTER HIS DEATH IN 2006, THE PROPERTY WAS INHERITED BY MR S. FIONA ALLAN FERNANDAS. THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO ADDED AS JOINT HOLDER OF THE PROPERTY AT THE TIME OF TRANSFER. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED TH AT THE ASSESSEE IS SUFFERING FROM ALZIEMER AND AS A RESULT, HIS MEMORY IS IMPAIRED . IN ORDER TO 3 ITA NO.2493/PUN/2016 A.Y.2010-11 PROTECT FINANCIAL INTEREST OF HIS UNMARRIED DAUGHTER, NEW A SSET WAS PURCHASED JOINTLY IN THE NAME OF HIS WIFE AND UNMARRIED DAUGHTER. THE LD. AR FURNISHED NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT REPORTS OF TH E ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT IN A FIT STATE OF MENTAL HEALTH. THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KAMAL WAHAL REPORTED AS 351 ITR 04 HELD THAT THE LAN GUAGE OF SECTION 54F DOES NOT MANDATE THAT THE HOUSE PROPERTY SHOULD BE PURCHASED IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE ALONE AND THE WORD ASSESSEE. TH E PROVISIONS OF SECTION 54F BEING BENEFICIAL PROVISION ENACTED FOR ENCOURAGING INVESTM ENT IN RESIDENTIAL HOUSES AND SHOULD BE LIBERALLY INTERPRETED. THE LD. AR TO FURTHER SUPPORT HIS CONTENTIONS PLACED RELIANCE ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS:- I) CIT VS. V. NATARAJAN, REPORTED AS 287 ITR 271 (MADRAS) II) CIT VS. RAVINDER KUMAR ARORA, REPORTED AS 342 ITR 38 (DELHI) III) DIT VS. JENNIFER BHIDE REPORTED AS 349 ITR 80 (KAR.) IV) MIR GULAM ALI KHAN VS. CIT REPORTED AS 165 ITR 288 (AP) 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, RAJESH GAWLI REPRESENTING THE DEPA RTMENT VEHEMENTLY DEFENDED THE IMPUGNED ORDERS. THE LD. DR SUBM ITTED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 54F MANDATES THAT THE CAPITAL GAINS ARISING FROM SALE SHOULD BE INVESTED BY ASSESSEE IN HIS OWN NAME FOR CLAIMIN G BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION U/S.54F OF THE ACT. THE LD. DR IN SUPPORT OF HIS C ONTENTIONS PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COUR T IN THE CASE OF PRAKASH VS. ITO REPORTED AS 173 TAXMANN.COM 311. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY REPRESENTATIVE S OF RIVAL SIDES AND HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED DECISIONS ON WHICH RIVAL SIDES HAVE PLACED RELIANC E TO SUPPORT 4 ITA NO.2493/PUN/2016 A.Y.2010-11 THEIR RESPECTIVE CONTENTIONS. IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT THA T CAPITAL ASSET SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE WAS JOINTLY OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE WIT H HIS WIFE IN EQUAL SHARE. THE CAPITAL GAINS ARISING FROM SALE OF ORIGINAL ASSET W AS INVESTED FOR PURCHASING RESIDENTIAL HOUSE JOINTLY IN THE NAMES OF ASSES SEES WIFE AND UNMARRIED DAUGHTER. THE REASON FOR INVESTMENT IN THE NAM E OF WIFE AND UNMARRIED DAUGHTER IS STATED TO BE FINANCIAL SECURITY OF T HE LADIES AND FRAGILE MENTAL HEALTH OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILE D MEDICAL RECORDS INDICATING THAT THE ASSESSEE IS SUFFERING FROM NEUROPSYCHOLO GICAL DISORDER AND HIS VERBAL AND VISUAL LEARNING AND MEMORY HAS BEEN IMPAIRED. 8. THE LD. AR PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISIONS OF VARIOUS HO N'BLE HIGH COURTS WHEREIN EXEMPTION U/S. 54F/54 OF THE ACT HAVE BE EN ALLOWED WHERE THE NEW ASSET HAS BEEN PURCHASED IN THE NAME OF WIFE. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RAVINDRA KUMAR ARORA (SUPRA.) THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COU RT HELD THAT IF THE PROPERTY IS PURCHASED JOINTLY IN THE NAME OF WIFE, THE CONDITIONS STIPULATED IN SECTION 54F STANDS FULFILLED. THE HON'BLE HIGH CO URT FURTHER OBSERVED THAT IF THE PROPERTY IS PURCHASED IN THE NAME OF WOMEN, IT WOULD ENCOURAGE EMPOWERMENT OF WOMEN. THE RELEVANT EXTRACT O F THE DECISION OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT READS AS UNDER: 8. AT THE OUTSET, IMPORTANT FACTUAL FINDINGS RECOR DED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THIS CASE ARE THAT IT WAS THE ASSESSEE WHO INDEPENDENTLY INVESTED IN THE PURCHASE OF NEW RESIDENTIAL HOUSE THOUGH IN HIS OWN NAME BUT ALONG WITH THE NAME OF HIS WIFE ALSO AND THAT IT WAS THE ASSESSEE WHO PAID STAMP DUTY AND CORPORATION TAX AT THE TIME OF THE REGISTRATION OF THE SALE DEED OF THE HOUSE SO PURCHASED AND HAS ALSO PAID COMMISSION AND LEGAL EXP ENSES IN CONNECTION WITH THE PURCHASE OF THE HOUSE. THE TRIBUNAL FURTHE R RECORDS THAT WHOLE OF THE PURCHASE CONSIDERATION HAS BEEN PAID BY THE ASSESSE E AND NOT EVEN A SINGLE PENNY HAS BEEN CONTRIBUTED BY THE WIFE IN THE PURCH ASE OF THE HOUSE. THE TRIBUNAL ALSO NOTED THE ARGUMENT THAT THE PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE JOINT NAME WITH HIS WIFE FOR SHAGU N PURPOSE AND BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS PHYSICALLY HANDICAPP ED. THE TRIBUNAL FURTHER CONCLUDES THAT AS A MATTER OF FACT, THE ASSESSEE WA S THE REAL OWNER OF THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE IN QUESTION. 9. ON THE AFORESAID FACTS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE CONDITIONS STIPULATED IN SECTION 54F STAND FULFILLED. IT WOULD BE TREATED AS THE PROPERTY PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS NAME AND MERELY BECAUSE HE H AS INCLUDED THE NAME OF 5 ITA NO.2493/PUN/2016 A.Y.2010-11 HIS WIFE AND THE PROPERTY PURCHASED IN THE JOINT NA MES WOULD NOT MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE. SUCH A CONDUCT HAS TO BE, RATHER, ENCOU RAGED WHICH GIVES EMPOWERMENT TO WOMEN. THERE ARE VARIOUS SCHEMES FLO ATED BY THE GOVERNMENT ITSELF PERMITTING JOINT OWNERSHIP WITH W IFE. IF THE VIEW OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) OR THE CONTENTION OF THE REV ENUE IS ACCEPTED, IT WOULD BE A DEROGATORY STEP. 10. EVEN WHEN WE LOOK INTO THE MATTER FROM ANOTHER ANGLE, FACTS REMAIN THAT THE ASSESSEE IS THE ACTUAL AND CONSTRUCTIVE OWNER O F THE HOUSE. IN CIT VS. PODAR CEMENTS (P) LTD. & ORS., (1997) 226 ITR 625 ( SC), THE SUPREME COURT HAS ALSO ACCEPTED THE THEORY OF CONSTRUCTIVE OWNERS HIP. MOREOVER, SECTION 54F MANDATES THAT THE HOUSE SHOULD BE PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE AND IT DOES NOT STIPULATE THAT THE HOUSE SHOULD BE PURCHAS ED IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE ONLY. HERE IS A CASE WHERE THE HOUSE WAS P URCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THAT TOO IN HIS NAME AND WIFE S NAME WAS ALSO INCLUDED ADDITIONALLY. SUCH INCLUSION OF THE NAME OF THE WIF E FOR THE ABOVE-STATED PECULIAR FACTUAL REASON SHOULD NOT STAND IN THE WAY OF THE DEDUCTION LEGITIMATELY ACCRUING TO THE ASSESSEE. OBJECTIVE OF SECTION 54F AND THE LIKE PROVISION SUCH AS SECTION 54 IS TO PROVIDE IMPETUS TO THE HOUSE CONSTRUCTION AND SO LONG AS THE PURPOSE OF HOUSE CONSTRUCTION IS ACHIEVED, SUCH HYPER TECHNICALITY SHOULD NOT IMPEDE THE WAY OF DEDUCTION WHICH THE LEGISLATURE HAS ALLOWED. PURPOSIVE CONSTRUCTION IS TO BE PREFERRED AS AGAINST THE LITERAL CONSTRUCTION, MORE SO WHEN EVEN LITERAL CONSTRUCTIO N ALSO DOES NOT SAY THAT THE HOUSE SHOULD BE PURCHASED IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESS EE ONLY. SECTION 54F OF THE ACT IS THE BENEFICIAL PROVISION WHICH SHOULD BE INTERPRETED LIBERALLY IN FAVOUR OF THE EXEMPTION/DEDUCTION TO THE TAXPAYER A ND DEDUCTION SHOULD NOT BE DENIED ON HYPER TECHNICAL GROUND. ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF LATE MIR GULAM ALI KHAN VS. CIT, (1987) 165 ITR 228 (AP) HAS HELD THAT THE OBJECT OF GRANTING EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54 OF TH E ACT IS THAT AN ASSESSEE WHO SELLS A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE FOR PURCHASING ANOTHE R HOUSE MUST BE GIVEN EXEMPTION SO FAR AS CAPITAL GAINS ARE CONCERNED. TH E WORD 'ASSESSEE' MUST BE GIVEN WIDE AND LIBERAL INTERPRETATION SO AS TO INCL UDE HIS LEGAL HEIRS ALSO. THERE IS NO WARRANT FOR GIVING TOO STRICT AN INTERP RETATION TO THE WORD 'ASSESSEE' AS THAT WOULD FRUSTRATE THE OBJECT OF GR ANTING EXEMPTION. [EMPHASIZED BY US ] 9. SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KAMAL WAHAL (SUPRA.). THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT EMPHASIZED ON THE RULE OF PURPOSIVE CONSTRUCTION OF PROVISION OF SECTIO N 54F OF THE ACT. THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE OBSERVATION OF HON'BLE HIGH C OURT READS AS UNDER: 9. IT THUS APPEARS TO US THAT THE PREDOMINANT JUDI CIAL VIEW, INCLUDING THAT OF THIS COURT, IS THAT FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTION 54F , THE NEW RESIDENTIAL HOUSE NEED NOT BE PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS OWN NA ME NOR IS IT NECESSARY THAT IT SHOULD BE PURCHASED EXCLUSIVELY IN HIS NAME . IT IS MOREOVER TO BE NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE HAS NOT PURCH ASED THE NEW HOUSE IN THE NAME OF A STRANGER OR SOMEBODY WHO IS UNCONNECTED W ITH HIM. HE HAS PURCHASED IT ONLY IN THE NAME OF HIS WIFE. THERE IS ALSO NO DISPUTE THAT THE ENTIRE INVESTMENT HAS COME OUT OF THE SALE PROCEEDS AND THAT THERE WAS NO CONTRIBUTION FROM THE ASSESSEE'S WIFE. 6 ITA NO.2493/PUN/2016 A.Y.2010-11 10. HAVING REGARD TO THE RULE OF PURPOSIVE CONSTRUC TION AND THE OBJECT WHICH SECTION 54F SEEKS TO ACHIEVE AND RESPECTFULLY AGREEING WITH THE JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT, WE ANSWER THE SUBSTANTIAL Q UESTION OF LAW FRAMED BY US IN THE AFFIRMATIVE, IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AN D AGAINST THE REVENUE. 10. IN THE CASE OF DIT VS. JENNIFER BHIDE (SUPRA.) WHEREIN W IFE HAD PURCHASED NEW ASSET JOINTLY WITH HER HUSBAND AND HAD CLAIMED BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION U/S.54F, THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT HELD: 7. ON CAREFUL READING OF S. 54 AS WELL AS S. 54EC ON WHICH RELIANCE IS PLACED MAKES IT CLEAR THAT WHEN CAPITAL GAINS ARISE FROM THE TRANSFER OF LONG TERM CAPITAL ASSET TO AN ASSESSEE AND THE ASSE SSEE HAS WITHIN THE PERIOD OF ONE YEAR BEFORE OR TWO YEARS AFTER THE DA TE ON WHICH THE TRANSFER TOOK PLACE PURCHASE OR HAS WITHIN THE PERI OD OF THREE YEARS AFTER THE DATE OF CONSTRUCTION OF RESIDENTIAL HOUSE THEN INSTEAD OF CAPITAL GAIN BEING CHARGED TO INCOME TAX AS INCOME OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH THE TRANSFER TOOK PLACE, IT SHALL BE DEALT WITH IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISION MADE UNDER THE SECTION WHICH GRA NTS EXEMPTION FROM PAYMENT OF CAPITAL GAINS AS SET OUT THERE UNDER. TH EREFORE, IN THE ENTIRE S. 54, THE PURCHASE TO BE MADE OR THE CONSTRUCTION TO BE PUT UP BY THE ASSESSEE, SHOULD BE THERE IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESS EE, IN NOT EXPRESSLY STATED. SIMILARLY EVEN IN RESPECT OF S. 54EC, THE AS SESSEE HAS AT ANY TIME WITHIN A PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS AFTER THE DATE O F SUCH TRANSFER INVESTED THE WHOLE OR ANY PART OF THE CAPITAL GAINS IN THE LONG TERM SPECIFIED ASSET THEN SHE WOULD BE ENTITLED TO THE B ENEFIT MENTIONED IN THE SAID SECTION. THERE ALSO IT IS NOT EXPRESSLY ST ATED THAT THE INVESTMENT SHOULD BE IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE. T HEREFORE, TO ATTRACT S. 54 AND S. 54EC OF THE ACT, WHAT IS MATERIAL IS T HE INVESTMENT OF THE SALE CONSIDERATION IN ACQUIRING THE RESIDENTIAL PRE MISES OR CONSTRUCTING A RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OR INVESTING THE AMOUNTS IN BONDS SET OUT IN S. 54EC. ONCE THE SALE CONSIDERATION IS INVESTED IN AN Y OF THESE MANNERS THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT CONFE RRED UNDER THIS PROVISION. IN THE ABSENCE OF AN EXPRESS PROVISION C ONTAINED IN THESE SECTIONS THAT THE INVESTMENT SHOULD BE IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE ONLY ANY SUCH INTERPRETATION WERE TO BE PLACED, IT AMOUNTS TO COURT INTRODUCING THE SAID WORD IN THE PROVISION WHICH IS NOT THERE. IT AMOUNTS COURT LEGISLATING WHEN THE PARLIAMENT HAS D ELIBERATELY NOT USED THOSE WORDS IN THE SAID SECTION. THAT IS THE V IEW TAKEN BY THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT AND HONBLE PUNJAB & HARY ANA HIGH COURT AND WE RESPECTFULLY AGREE WITH THE VIEW EXPRESSED I N THE AFORESAID JUDGMENT. 8. IN THE INSTANT CASE THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED T HE PROPERTY JOINTLY WITH HER HUSBAND. SHE HAS INVESTED THE MONEY IN RUR AL BONDS JOINTLY WITH HER HUSBAND. IT IS NOBODYS CASE THAT HER HUSB AND CONTRIBUTED ANY PORTION OF THE CONSIDERATION FOR ACQUISITION OF THE PROPERTY AS WELL AS BONDS. THE SOURCE FOR ACQUISITION OF THE PROPERT Y AND THE BONDS IS THE SALE CONSIDERATION. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE. ONCE THE SALE CONSIDERATION IS UTILIZED FOR THE PURPOSE MENTIONED UNDER SS. 54 AND 54EC, THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT OF THOSE PROVIS IONS. AS THE ENTIRE CONSIDERATION HAS FLOWN FROM THE ASSESSEE AND NO CO NSIDERATION HAS FLOWN FROM HER HUSBAND, MERELY BECAUSE EITHER IN TH E SALE DEED OR IN THE BOND HER HUSBANDS NAME IS ALSO MENTIONED, IN L AW HE WOULD NOT HAVE ANY RIGHT. 7 ITA NO.2493/PUN/2016 A.Y.2010-11 11. THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS . NATARAJAN (SUPRA.) ALLOWED THE BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION U/S. 54 WHERE THE C APITAL GAINS ARISING FROM SALE OF ORIGINAL ASSET WAS UTILIZED FOR PURCHASE OF NEW ASSET IN THE NAME OF WIFE. THUS, THERE IS NO BAR IN PURCHASING THE NEW ASSET IN THE NAME OF SPOUSE FOR BEING ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM EXEMPTION U/S. 54F OF THE ACT. THE HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. GURNAM SINGH, REPORTED AS 327 ITR 278 ALLOWED EXEMPTION U/S.54B OF THE ACT WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED AGRICULTURAL LAND JOINTLY IN T HE NAME OF HIS SON AFTER INVESTING CAPITAL GAINS. THUS, A PLAIN READING OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 54F AND PER USAL OF DECISIONS DISCUSSED ABOVE, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ELIG IBLE FOR CLAIMING BENEFIT OF SECTION 54F AFTER HAVING INVESTED CAPITAL GAIN TO WARDS PURCHASE OF NEW ASSET JOINTLY IN THE NAMES OF HIS WIFE AND UNMARRIED DAUGHTER. 12. THE REVENUE HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF HON 'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PRAKASH VS. ITO (SU PRA.) FOR REJECTING THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S.54F OF TH E ACT. WE FIND THAT THE FACTS IN THE AFORESAID CASE ARE DISTINGUISHABLE. IN THE SAID CASE, ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED EXEMPTION U/S.54F FOR MAKING INVESTMENT OF SALE PROCEEDS OF AGRICULTURAL LAND IN THE NAME OF ADOPTED SON. WHEREAS, IN TH E PRESENT CASE, ORIGINAL ASSET SOLD WAS JOINTLY IN THE NAME OF ASSESSEE AN D HIS WIFE AND SALE PROCEEDS FROM ORIGINAL ASSET WERE INVESTED BY THE ASSESS EE JOINTLY IN THE NAMES OF WIFE AND UNMARRIED DAUGHTER ON ACCOUNT OF HIS UNSTABLE MENTAL CONDITION. 8 ITA NO.2493/PUN/2016 A.Y.2010-11 13. THUS, IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AS DISCUSSED ABOVE AND VAR IOUS JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS, WE FIND MERIT IN THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSE E. ACCORDINGLY, THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS SET ASIDE AND APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 14. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON FRIDAY, THE 31 ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2018 SD/- SD/- ( . / D. KARUNAKARA RAO ) ( ! /VIKAS AWASTHY) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE; !' / DATED : 31 ST AUGUST, 2018 SB ) * +',- . ', / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT. 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT (APPEALS)-9, PUNE. 4. THE PR. CIT-5, PUNE. 5. %&' () , * () , - +,- , / DR, ITAT, SMC BENCH, PUNE. 6. './ 01 / GUARD FILE. // TRUE COPY // *2 / BY ORDER, 3 (- / PRIVATE SECRETARY * () , / ITAT, PUNE.