Mrs. Meena Sharma, New Delhi V. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 4857/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2883 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 3 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-01-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 09-10-2015
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 12-09-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P DAM KANUNJNA
• Keywords: Capital asset; Benefit of exemption
• Section: 54F

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES: E NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDI CIAL MEMBER ITA NO: 4857/DEL/2012 ASSTT. YEAR 2007-08 MEENA SHARMA VS. ACIT 3, OAK DRIVE, CIRCLE-27(1) DLF CHATTARPUR NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI 110 030 PAN AEXPS4205C (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI SALIL AGGARWAL, ADVOCATE SHRI SAILASH GUPTA, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI P.DAM KANUNJNA, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING : 09.10.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 01.01.2016 O R D E R PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS IS ASSESSEES APPEAL FILED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 4.6.2012 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT (A) XVIII, NEW DELHI. 2. THE FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT AS SESEE HAD PURCHASED PROPERTY NO. 301B AND 302B IN GLOBAL BUSINESS PARK, GURGAON AND HAD CLAIMED EXEMPTION U/S 54F OF THE ACT ON ITS SALE DURING THE YEAR BY MAKIN G INVESTMENT IN PLOT IN UNIWORLD RESORTS, GURGAON. THE AO, DURING THE COURSE OF PROC EEDINGS U/S 143(3), HAD NOTICED THAT THE REGISTRATION OF THE PROPERTY 301B & 301B, GLOBAL BUSINESS PARK, GURGAON TOOK PLACE ON 27.4.2006 I.E. THE DATE ON WHICH THE REGISTRATION CHARGES WERE PAID. BEFORE THE AO THE ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO PRODUCE AN Y EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT HE HAD THE POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY OR THAT THE PROP ERTY HAD BEEN TRANSFERRED TO HIM ITA NO. 4857/DEL/2012 MEENA SHARMA VS. ACIT 2 'V* ' BEFORE THE DATE OF REGISTRATION I.E. 27.4.2006. THI S PROPERTY WAS SOLD ON 8.8.2006 AND THE AO WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE CAPITAL GAIN S RECEIVED BY THE ASSESESE WAS SHORT TERM AND NOT LONG TERM IN NATURE. BASED ON TH IS FINDING THE AO DID NOT ALLOW THE BENEFIT OF INDEXATION OR OF DEDUCTION U/S 54F T O THE ASSESSEE. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE COULD ONLY PRO DUCE PROVISIONAL RECEIPTS FROM UNITECH RESIDENTIAL RESORTS SHOWING PAYMENT OF VARI OUS SUMS TOWARDS APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION FOR ALLOTMENT OF A PLOT MEASURING 502.32 SQ. YARDS IN UNIWORLD RESORTS. IT WAS MENTIONED ON THE TEMPORARY RECEIPTS THAT PERMANENT RECEIPT HAD NOT BEEN ISSUED AS SPECIFIC ALLOCATION OF PLOT HAD NOT BEEN MADE TILL DATE. THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO UNABLE TO PRODUCE POSSESSION OF THIS PROPE RTY. THE AO, ON THE GROUND, THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE INVESTMENT IN PLOT AND NOT IN A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE, HELD THAT THE BENEFIT OF SECTION 54F WAS NOT ALLOWABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. HE ALSO HELD THAT CIRCULAR NO. 471 DATED 15.10.86 ISSUED BY THE CBDT ALSO WAS NOT APPLICABLE AS THE CIRCULAR WAS ONLY RELEVANT IN THE CASE OF PLOTS PUR CHASED UNDER SELF FINANCING SCHEME. IT IS SEEN FROM THE RECORDS THAT THE RELEVA NT DATES AND AMOUNTS ARE AS UNDER:- PARTICULARS DATE AMOUNT(RS) APPLICATION MONEY PAID FOR FLAT BOOKING 22.1.2002 235025 DATE OF ALLOTMENT AND SIGNING OF AGREEMENT 22.2.2002 - INSTALMENT PAID 12.4.2002 1000620 INSTALMENT PAID 11.10.2003 794815 LET OUT ON RENT JUNE, 2004 CONVEYANCE DEED EXECUTED 27.4.2006 258 756 SALE OF PROPERTY 08.08.2006 4173000 ITA NO. 4857/DEL/2012 MEENA SHARMA VS. ACIT 3 'V* ' 3. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO, WHILE DENYING THE BENEF IT OF INDEXATION AND ALSO THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION U/S 54F, CALCULATED THE SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS AT RS. 1883784/-. 4. BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A), THE ASSESSEE AGAI N SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE ALLOTMENT OF PLOT WAS MADE ON 22.2.2002, THE CAPITAL ASSET HA S BEEN HELD BY HER FOR MORE THAN 36 MONTHS AND THEREFORE THE CAPITAL GAIN EARNED ON ITS SALE WAS IN THE NATURE OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AND NOT A SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN . THE ASSESEE ALSO CONTESTED THE DENIAL OF BENEFIT U/S 54F BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A). H OWEVER, THE LD. CIT (A) UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE AO ON BOTH THE COUNTS AND DISMISSE D THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. IN THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE US, THE ASSES SEE HAS ASSAILED THE ORDERS OF THE AO AS WELL AS THE LD. CIT (A) ON TWO COUNTS VIZ. LO NG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF PROPERTY BEING TREATED AS SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN A ND THE DENIAL OF BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION FROM CAPITAL GAINS U/S 54F ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT IN RESIDENTIAL PLOT. 6. LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE RIGHTS IN THE FLA T VESTED WITH THE ASSESSEE ON 12.4.2002 WHEN THE FLAT WAS ALLOTTED TO THE ASSESSE E BY VIRTUE OF THE AGREEMENT EXECUTED BETWEEN M/S. SARVMANGALAM BUILDERS AND DEV ELOPERS PVT. LTD. AND THE ASSESSEE, A COPY OF WHICH HAS BEEN PLACED ON PAGES 6 TO 14 OF THE PAPER BOOK. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT BY VIRTUE OF THE AGREEMENT, RIGHTS IN THE PLOT VESTED IN THE ASSESSEE AND SHE LET OUT THE SAME ON RENT W.E.F JUN E, 2004. AS A RESULT, TILL THE DATE OF SALE, THE ASSESSEE EARNED RENTAL INCOME THEREON WHICH WAS DULY DECLARED IN HER RETURN OF INCOME UNDER HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROP ERTY. THESE RIGHTS WERE HELD BY THE ASSESSEE TILL 8.8.2006 WHEN THESE WERE SOLD TO ANOTHER BUYER. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THESE RIGHTS IN THE PLOT WERE ACQUIRED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ITA NO. 4857/DEL/2012 MEENA SHARMA VS. ACIT 4 'V* ' 12.4.2002 I.E. ON THE DATE THE FIRST INSTALMENT WAS PAID AND WERE TRANSFERRED TO ANOTHER BUYER ON 8.8.2006, THESE WERE HELD BY THE A SSESSEE FOR A PERIOD OF MORE THAN 36 MONTHS AND HENCE BY VIRTUE OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(42A) AND 2(42B) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, THE ASSESSEE WAS LIABLE TO TAX UNDER LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS AND NOT SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS WHICH HAS BEEN S O DONE BY THE AO BY CONSIDERING THE DATE OF EXECUTION OF CONVEYANCE DEED I.E. 27.4. 2006 AS THE FIRST DATE OF HOLDING THE PROPERTY. LD. AR ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON THE FO LLOWING DECISIONS:- 1. CIT VS. R.L. SOOD 245 ITR 727 (DELHI) 2. CIT VS. VED PRAKASH AND SONS HUF 207 ITR 148 (DELH I) 3. VINOD KUMAR JAIN VS. CIT 344 ITR 501 (P&H) 4. MADHU KAUL VS. CIT 363 ITR 54 (P&H) 5. PRAVEEN GUPTA VS. ACIT 137 TTJ 307 (DELHI ITAT) 6. JITENDRA MOHAN VS. ITO (DELHI ITAT) 11 SOT 594 7. AMIT MALHOTRA VS. ITO (DELHI ITAT) ITA NO. 6631/DE L/2013 7. LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, SUBMITTED THAT THE AO WAS JUSTIFIED IN COMPUTING THE PERIOD OF HOLDING OF THE PROPERTY BY THE ASSESS EE FROM THE DATE OF CONVEYANCE DEED DATED 27.4.2006 TILL THE DATE OF SALE I.E. 8.8 .2006 AND SINCE THE HOLDING PERIOD WAS LESS THAN 36 MONTHS, THE AO HAD RIGHTLY HELD TH AT IT WAS A CASE OF SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS AND NOT LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS AS CL AIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE ASS ESEE HAVE DISTINGUISHABLE FACTS ITA NO. 4857/DEL/2012 MEENA SHARMA VS. ACIT 5 'V* ' AND WERE NOT APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE AND SUB MITTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW SHOULD BE UPHELD. 8. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAVE PERUSED THE RELEVANT RECORDS AND THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE LD. AR . WE FIND THAT THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN THE CASE OF C IT VS. R.L. SOOD (SUPRA) AND HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. VED PRAKASH AND SONS HUF (SUPRA), UNDER ALMOST SIMILAR FACTS OF THE CASE ARE HELPFUL TO THE ASSESSEE. THERE IS NO DISPUTE ON THE FACT IN THE PRESENT CASE THAT THE AGREEMENT DATED 22.2.2002 WAS ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE DEVELOPER AN D THE ASSESSEE. THE SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF CONSIDERATION AMOUNTING TO RS . 1000620/- WAS ALSO PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE DEVELOPER ON 12.4.2002 ALTHOUGH THE CONVEYANCE DEED WAS EXECUTED ON 27.4.2006. SIMILAR WERE THE FACTS BEFOR E THE HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. VED PRAKASH AND S ONS HUF (SUPRA). IN THAT CASE BEFORE THE HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT, THE ASSESSEE HAD ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT ON 29.5.1970 WITH THE BUILDER FOR PURCHAS E OF FLAT IN A MULTI-STOREYED BUILDING. PURSUANT TO THE AGREEMENT, THE ASSESSEE W AS PUT IN POSSESSION AND WAS ALSO ASSESSED FOR HIS INCOME BY THE DEPARTMENT. AS PER STIPULATION, ASSESSEE WAS TO PAY AMOUNTS DUE IN INSTALMENTS AND THE FINAL AMOUNT WAS PAID ON 10.2.1973. THE ISSUE BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT WAS AS TO WHETH ER FOR COMPUTATION OF PERIOD OF 24 MONTHS STATED IN SECTION 2 (42A), AS IT STOOD AT THAT RELEVANT TIME, THE ASSESEE HAS TO BE TREATED AS OWNER OF PROPERTY W.E.F. 29.5. 1970 AND HENCE CAPITAL GAINS ARISING TO HIM FROM THE SALE OF THE AFORESAID FLAT WERE TAXABLE AS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS. AFTER DISCUSSING THE ISSUE IN DETAIL, THE HO NBLE HIGH COURT WAS PLEASED TO ANSWER THE QUESTION IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. SIMI LARLY IN THE CASE OF VINOD KUMAR ITA NO. 4857/DEL/2012 MEENA SHARMA VS. ACIT 6 'V* ' JAIN VS. CIT (SUPRA) BEFORE THE HONBLE PUNJAB & HA RYANA HIGH COURT, THE ASSESSEE WAS ALLOTTED A FLAT UNDER A SCHEME OF DDA ON 27.2.1 982. DELIVERY OF POSSESSION OF THE SAID FLAT TOOK PLACE ON 15.5.1986 WHEN THE ACTU AL FLAT NUMBER WAS ALLOCATED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE SOLD THE SAID FLAT ON 6. 1.1989 AND CLAIMED THAT THE CAPITAL GAINS ARISING ON SALE OF FLAT WAS A LONG TE RM CAPITAL GAIN. IN THIS CASE ALSO THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF PUNAB & HARYANA WAS PLEASED T O ANSWER THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ISSUE RAISED BEFORE THE HONBLE H IGH COURT OF DELHI IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. R.L. SOOD (SUPRA) WAS AS TO WHETHER ON PAYM ENT OF SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT IN TERMS OF PURCHASE AGREEMENT WITHIN FOUR DAYS OF SAL E OF HIS OLD HOUSE, THE ASSESSEE ACQUIRED SUBSTANTIAL DOMAIN OVER NEW RESIDENTIAL FL AT WITHIN SPECIFIED PERIOD, IT COULD BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPLIED WITH REQUIREMENT OF SECTION 54 AND FURTHER ISSUE WAS AS TO WHETHER MERELY BECAUSE THE BUILDER FAILED TO HAND OVER THE POSSESSION OF FLAT WITHIN SPECIFIED PERIOD, THE ASSESEE COULD BE DENIED BENEFIT OF BENEVOLENT PROVISION OF SECTION 54. HERE AGAIN THE HONBLE DEL HI HIGH COURT WAS PLEASED TO ANSWER THE ISSUES IN AFFIRMATIVE I.E. IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. DECISION RENDERED BY THE DELHI A BENCH IN ITA NO. 6631/DEL/2013 IN THE C ASE OF SHRI AMIT MALHOTRA VS. ACIT HAS ALSO FOLLOWED THE PRINCIPLES ENUNCIATED BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI ON THESE ISSUES IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. R.L. SOOD (S UPRA). 9. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE RATIO OF THESE D ECISIONS, WE HOLD THAT SINCE THE ALLOTMENT OF PLOT WAS MADE ON 22.2.2002 AND ITS SUB SEQUENT SALE TOOK PLACE ON 8.8.2006, THE CAPITAL ASSET HAS BEEN HELD BY THE AS SESSEE FOR MORE THAN 36 MONTHS AND THEREFORE THE CAPITAL GAIN EARNED ON ITS SALE W AS IN THE NATURE OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AND NOT A SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN. ITA NO. 4857/DEL/2012 MEENA SHARMA VS. ACIT 7 'V* ' 10. THE SECOND ISSUE WHICH IS BEFORE US IS REGAR DING THE DENIAL OF EXEMPTION U/S 54F. ON THIS ISSUE, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE A SSESSEE HAD INVESTED THE ENTIRE SALE CONSIDERATION OF THE FLATS IN PURCHASE OF RESI DENTIAL PLOT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE BEFORE DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETU RN OF INCOME AND HENCE THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO BENEFIT U/S 54F OF THE INC OME TAX ACT, 1961. LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT UNDER THE SCHEME OF SECTION 54/54F W HAT IS IMPORTANT IS THAT THE INVESTMENT HAS TO BE MADE IN THE YEAR OF SALE FOR C LAIMING EXEMPTION AND IF THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE IS NOT COMPLE TED WITHIN THREE YEARS EVEN THEN EXEMPTION CANNOT BE DENIED IN THE YEAR OF INVESTMEN T BUT ONLY IN THE YEAR IN WHICH THE PERIOD OF THREE YEARS EXPIRES. THE LD. DR SUBMI TTED THAT THE BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION U/S 54F CANNOT BE EXTENDED TO THE PURCHAS E OF A PLOT. 11. HAVING HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, BEFORE A DJUDICATING ON THE ISSUE, A REFERENCE MAY BE MADE TO CIRCULAR NO. 667 DATED 18. 10.1993 ISSUED BY THE CBDT IN THIS REGARD WHICH READS AS UNDER:- 431. WHETHER, IN CASES WHERE THE RESIDENTIAL HOU SE IS CONSTRUCTED WITHIN THE SPECIFIED PERIOD, THE COST OF SUCH RESIDENTIAL HOUSE CAN BE TAKEN TO INCLUDE THE COST OF THE PLOT ALSO 1.SECTION 54 AND 54F PROVIDE FOR A DEDUCTION IN CAS ES WHERE AN ASSESSEE HAS, WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR BEFORE OR TWO YEAR S AFTER THE DATE ON WHICH THE TRANSFER OF A CAPITAL ASSET TAKES PLACE, PURCHASED, OR HAS WITHIN A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS AFTER THAT DATE CONSTRUCTED , A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. THE QUANTUM OF DEDUCTION IS ITSELF DEPENDENT UPON T HE COST OF SUCH NEW ASSET. IT HAS BEEN REPRESENTED TO THE BOARD THAT TH E COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE SHOULD BE TAKEN TO INCLUDE TH E COST OF THE PLOT AS, IN A SITUATION OF PURCHASE OF ANY HOUSE PROPERTY, THE CONSIDERATION PAID GENERALLY INCLUDES THE CONSIDERATION FOR THE PLOT A LSO. 2. THE BOARD HAS EXAMINED THE ISSUE WHETHER, IN CAS ES WHERE THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE IS CONSTRUCTED WITHIN THE SPECIFI ED PERIOD, THE COST OF SUCH RESIDENTIAL HOUSE CAN BE TAKEN TO INCLUDE THE COST OF THE PLOT ALSO. THE BOARD ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE COST OF THE LAND IS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE COST OF THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE, WHETHER PURCHASE D OR BUILT. ACCORDINGLY, ITA NO. 4857/DEL/2012 MEENA SHARMA VS. ACIT 8 'V* ' IF THE AMOUNT OF CAPITAL GAIN FOR THE PURPOSES OF S ECTION 54, AND THE NET CONSIDERATION FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTION 54F, IS A PPROPRIATED TOWARDS PURCHASE OF A PLOT AND ALSO TOWARDS CONSTRUCTION OF A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE THEREON, THE AGGREGATE COST SHOULD BE CONSIDERED FO R DETERMINING THE QUANTUM OF DEDUCTION U/S 54/54F, PROVIDED THAT THE ACQUISITION OF PLOT AND ALSO THE CONSTRUCTION THEREON, ARE COMPLETED WITHIN THE PERIOD SPECIFIED IN THESE SECTIONS. 12. AS IS SEEN FROM A PLAIN READING OF THIS CI RCULAR, THE COST OF THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE WILL INCLUDE THE COST OF PLOT ALSO. HENCE THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE DENIED BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION U/S 54F ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSE E HAD ONLY PURCHASED A PLOT FOR CONSTRUCTING A RESIDENTIAL BUILDING THEREON IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE LD. CIT (A) WAS ALSO OF THE VIEW THAT SINCE CONSTRUCTIO N HAD NOT BEEN STARTED ON THE PLOT, THE BENEFIT OF SECTION 54F CANNOT BE GRANTED. IN THIS REGARD, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT AS PER THE SCHEME OF SECTIO N 54 OF THE ACT, CAPITAL GAINS CANNOT BE CHARGED TO INCOME TAX IN PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH THE TRANSFER OF THE ORIGINAL ASSET TAKES PLACE IF THE AMOUNT OF CAPITAL GAIN IS INVESTED BY THE ASSESSE IN ONE OF THE PRESCRIBED MODES, (PURCHASE OF PLOT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSE IN THE CASE OF THIS ASSESSEE). THE ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE, IF AN Y, WILL HAVE TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH THE PERIOD OF THREE YEARS FR OM THE DATE OF THE TRANSFER OF THE ORIGINAL ASSET EXPIRES. OUR VIEW IS ALSO IN CONSONA NCE WITH THE VIEW OF THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. SARDARMAL KOTHARI & AN OTHER 302 ITR 286 (MAD.). THIS VIEW HAS ALSO BEEN TAKEN BY THE LUCKNOW B BENCH IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. SRI ASEEM RASTOGI IN ITA NO. 363/LKW/2014. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS OUR CONSIDERED OPINION THAT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE, EXEMPTION U/S 54F CANNOT BE DENIED TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE YEAR IN WHICH THE TRANSFER OF ASSET TOOK PLACE AS F AR AS THE ASSESEE HAS INVESTED RS. 1575169/- TOWARDS PURCHASE OF A RESIDENTIAL PLOT. ITA NO. 4857/DEL/2012 MEENA SHARMA VS. ACIT 9 'V* ' 13. YET ANOTHER OBJECTION OF THE AO IN GRANTI NG EXEMPTION U/S 54F HAS BEEN THAT THE PLOT HAS NOT BEEN PURCHASED SOLELY IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE BUT JOINTLY WITH HER HUSBAND. THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT HAS SETTL ED THIS ISSUE IN CIT VS. SHRI KAMAL WAHAL 351 ITR 4 (DEL) WHEREIN IN PARA 9 & 10 OF THE JUDGMENT THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS OBSERVED 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 SEC TION 54F, THE NEW RESIDENTIAL HOUSE NEED NOT BE PURCHASED BY THE ASSE SEE IN HIS OWN NAME NOR IS IT NECESSARY THAT IT SHOULD BE PURCHASE D EXCLUSIVELY IN HIS NAME. IT IS MOREOVER TO BE NOTED THAT THE ASSESEE I N THE PRESENT CASE HAS NOT PURCHASED THE NEW HOUSE IN THE NAME OF A ST RANGER OR SOMEBODY WHO IS UNCONNECTED WITH HIM. HE HAS PURCHA SED 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 TH AT THERE WAS NO CONTRIBUTION FROM THE ASSESEES WIFE. 10. HAVING REGARD TO THE RULE OF PURPOSIVE CONSTRU CTION 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 A SSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE. 14. THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF T HE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT, THIS OBJECTION OF THE DEPARTMENT ALSO DOES NOT HOLD . 15. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDER ED OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE DENIED THE BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION U/S 54F A ND THE GROUNDS PERTAINING TO THIS CLAIM ARE ALSO ALLOWED. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 01 .01.2016. SD/- SD/- (INTURI RAMA RAO) (SUD HANSHU SRIVASTAVA ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 4857/DEL/2012 MEENA SHARMA VS. ACIT 10 'V* ' DATED: THE 1 ST JANUARY, 2016 VEENA COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER DY. REGISTRAR