ITO, New Delhi V. Sunil Arora (HUF), New Delhi

ITA 897/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 89720114 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-09-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 26-08-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 13-02-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SUNIL ARORA; RUCHIKA JIAN ACA
• Keywords: Question of law; Benefit of exemption
• Section: 80C; 54B; 54F; 54

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH G , NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI N. K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 897/DEL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 ITO, WARD 32.(2), VS. M/S. SUNIL ARORA (HUF) NEW DELHI A-1/118, SAFDARJUNG ENCLAVE, NEW DELHI-110 029 GIR / PAN:AABHS3299C (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI SUJIT KUMAR, SR. DR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SUNIL ARORA, FCA & MS. RUCHIKA JIAN, ACA DATE OF HEARING : 26.08.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 14.09.2015 ORDER PER KULDIP SINGH, JM: THE APPELLANT, INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 32(2), NEW DELHI BY FILING THE PRESENT APPEAL, SOUGHT TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER D ATED 30 TH NOVEMBER 2012 PASSED BY LD. CIT(A)-XXVI, NEW DELHI FOR THE ASSESS MENT YEAR 2001-02 ON THE GROUNDS INTER ALIA THAT: 1. THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWAN CE OF EXEMPTION OF RS.43,39,328/- CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S 54 & 54F OF THE I. T. ACT, 1961 IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE NEW PROPERTY W AS REGISTERED IN THE NAME OF INDIVIDUAL AND NOT IN THE NAME OF HUF. 2. THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT EXEMPTION U /S 54 & 54F IS AVAILABLE TO THE HUF ASSESSEE EVEN THOUGH THE NEW P ROPERTY BOUGHT ITA NO.897/DEL/2013 2 DOES NOT BELONG TO THE HUF BUT IN THE INDIVIDUAL NA ME OF KARTA AND HIS WIFE. 2. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THIS CASE ARE: DUR ING THE PROCESSING OF INCOME TAX RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S 143(1) OF THE I. T. ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT ACT), DECLARING INCOME OF RS.1,48,370/-, TH E CASE WAS PUT UNDER SCRUTINY UNDER CASS. MRS. RUCHIKA JAIN, CA APPEARE D AND FILED NECESSARY DOCUMENTS / DETAILS. ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN RENTAL INC OME OF RS.92,000/- FROM CAPITAL BEARING NUMBER A-955, SUSHANT LOK, PHASE I, GURGAON, 30% DEDUCTION OF RS.27,600/- AND CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF R S.1.50 LACS AS INTEREST PAID ON BORROWED FUNDS FOR THE PURCHASE OF PROPERTY . 3. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO SHOWN INCOME FROM LONG TER M CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY OF RS.21,81,250/- AND LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF SHARES OF RS.23,58,078/-, ASSESSEE HAS CLAI MED EXEMPTION U/S 54 OF THE ACT OF RS.21,81,250/- AND EXEMPTION U/S 54F OF THE ACT OF RS.23,58,078/- AND SHOWN TOTAL TAXABLE CAPITAL GAIN AS NIL. THE ASSESSEE, M/S SUNIL ARORA (HUF) HAS EARNED LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS.21,81,250/- PLUS RS.23,58,078/- TOTAL AMOUNTING TO RS.43,39,328 /- AND CLAIMED EXEMPTION U/S 54 AND 54F OF THE ACT, WHICH WAS DISA LLOWED AND ADDED TO HIS INCOME BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAS NEITHER PURCHASED ANY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY IN ITS OWN NAME, NOR CONSTRUCTED ANY RESIDENTIAL PR OPERTY IN ITS OWN NAME WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED LIMIT U/S 54 OF THE ACT. 4. THE A.O. HAS DISALLOWED THE STANDARD DEDUCTION O F RS.27,600/- U/S 24 OF THE ACT, INTEREST ON BORROWED CAPITAL OF RS.1.50 LACS U/S 80C REBATE AND RS.34,011/- ON THE GROUND THAT NEW RESIDENTIAL PROP ERTY IS NOT IN THE NAME OF ASSESSEE AND LOAN FROM ICICI BANK IS ALSO NOT SANCT IONED IN THE NAME OF ASSESSEE AND THEREBY ASSESSED A TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 46,99,328/-. SEPARATE ITA NO.897/DEL/2013 3 PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) READ WITH SECTION 274 OF THE ACT HAVE BEEN SOUGHT TO BE INITIATED FOR CONCEALING / FURNIS HING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. 5. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS BEEN CHALLENGED BY THE ASSESSEE BY WAY OF APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A) NEW DELHI AND THE APPEAL W AS PARTLY ALLOWED. FEELING AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE HAS COME UP BEFORE T HE TRIBUNAL BY FILING THE PRESENT APPEAL. 6. THE SOLE QUESTION ARISES FOR DETERMINATION IN TH IS CASE IS, AS TO WHETHER LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALL OWANCE OF EXEMPTION OF RS.43,39,328/- CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSES U/S 54 AN D 54F OF THE ACT BY IGNORING THE FACT THAT NEW PROPERTY WAS REGISTERED IN THE NAME OF INDIVIDUALS AND NOT IN THE NAME OF HUF. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES OF PARTIES TO THE APPEAL AND GONE THROUGH DOCUMENTS PLACED ON RECORD IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 8. UNDISPUTED FACTS OF THIS CASE ARE INTER ALIA THA T UNDER I. T. ACT, 1961, THE HUF HAS SEPARATE AND DISTINCT STATUS APART FROM MEMBERS OF HUF; THAT SALE CONSIDERATION FOR THE PURCHASE OF NEW RESIDENT IAL PROPERTY AT SUSHANT LOK WAS PAID PARTLY OUT OF SALE PROCEEDS OF ORIGINA L RESIDENTIAL HOUSE PROPERTY OWNED BY HUF AND THE SHARES OF PRIVATE LIM ITED COMPANY AND PARTLY OUT OF LOAN FINANCED BY ICICI BANK IN THE NA ME OF SUNIL ARORA AND HIS WIFE SMT. VAISHALI SUNIL. 9. THE LD. D.R. CHALLENGED THE IMPUGNED ORDER BY CO NTENDING INTER ALIA THAT CAPITAL GAIN IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE HAS BEEN INVESTED TO PURCHASE OTHER PROPERTY IN HIS INDIVIDUAL NAME AS WELL AS IN THE NAME OF HIS WIFE; THAT THE COST OF PROPERTY HAS BEEN PARTLY PAID OUT OF SA LE PROCEEDS OF ORIGINAL RESIDENTIAL HOUSE PROPERTY AND FROM THE SALE OF SHA RES OF PRIVATE LIMITED ITA NO.897/DEL/2013 4 COMPANY AND PARTLY OUT OF LOAN FINANCED FROM ICICI BANK HAVING NO CONCERN WITH THE HUF AND AS SUCH, ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED FOR EXEMPTION U/S 54 AND 54F OF THE ACT. TO SUPPORT HIS ARGUMENTS, LD. D.R. RELIED UPON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT CITED AS VIPIN MALIK (HUF) VS CIT IN I.T.A.NO. 1241/2007 DATED 7 TH AUGUST 2009 AND THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HONBLE HIGH CORUT OF RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH , JAIPUR IN THE CASE OF SHRI KALYA VS CIT AND OTHERS IN I.T.A.NO. 1 12/2012 DATED 19 TH MAY 2012. PARA 9 OF THE JUDGEMENT OF VIPIN MALIK IS REPRODU CED AS UNDER FOR READY REFERENCE: 9. INDEPENDENT OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, AN ASPECT WHICH OVERRIDES THE ABOVE ISSUE, IS THAT, THE AGRICULTURAL LAND WHI CH WAS SOLD WAS OF VIPIN MALIK HUF AND THE FLAT PURCHASED IN THE CO-OP ERATIVE SOCIETY WAS NOT IN THE NAME OF THE HUF. THE FLAT WAS IN THE INDIVIDUAL NAME OF VIPIN MALIK ALONG WITH HIS MOTHER IN ITA NO.1241 /2007 PAGE 6 CHANAN DEVI SACHDEVA. TO CLAIM THE BENEFIT OF SECTI ON 54-F THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE WHICH IS PURCHASED OR CONSTRUCTED HAS TO BE OF THE SAME ASSESSEE WHOSE AGRICULTURAL LAND IS SOLD AND W HICH IS THEREFORE NOT THE CASE HERE. THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPH 12 OF TH E ORDER OF THE I.T.A.T EFFECTIVELY AND EXHAUSTIVELY SETS OUT THESE FACTS AND WE REPRODUCE THE SAME BELOW:- ' 12. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS OBSERVED THAT TH E CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54F WAS DISALL OWED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ON VARIOUS GROUNDS. FIRST OF ALL, IT WAS HELD BY THE AO THAT THE INVESTMENT CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY/FLAT IN KANUNGO COOPERATIV E GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. WAS NOT IN ITS NAME BUT THE SAME WAS I N THE JOINT NAME OF TWO INDIVIDUAL VIZ., SMT. CHANAN DEVI SACHDEVA AND SHRI VIPIN MALIK. BEFORE US, THE LEARNED DR HAS STRONGLY SUPPORTED AN D SUBSTANTIATED THIS GROUND GIVEN BY THE AO FOR DISALLOWING THE CLA IM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 54F BY REFERRING TO THE VARIOUS C ERTIFICATES AND RECEIPTS ISSUED BY THE SAID SOCIETY WHEREIN THE NAM ES OF INDIVIDUALS WERE APPEARING WITHOUT ANY INDICATION OF HUF. THE L EARNED COUNSEL ITA NO.897/DEL/2013 5 FOR THE ASSESSEE, ON THE OTHER HAND, HAS RELIED ON THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE SOCIETY ON 30.4.2000 WHER EIN BOTH THE INDIVIDUAL NAMES WERE APPEARING WITH SHRI VIPIN MAL IK BEING MENTIONED AS KARTA OF M/S VIPIN MALIK, HUF. HE HAS ALSO CONTENDED THAT SMT. CHANAN DEVI SACHDEVA BEING THE OLDEST MEM BER OF THE ASSESSEE-HUF, HER NAME WAS GIVEN AS MEMBER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. AFTER CAREFUL EXAMINATION OF ALL THESE DOCUMENTS AS WELL AS KEEPING IN VIEW ALL THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE FIND IT DIFFICULT TO AGREE WITH THE STAND TAKEN ON BEHAL F OF THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE. IN THIS REGARD, A REFERENCE CAN BE MADE AT THE OUTSET TO THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE SOCIETY BEARING NO.237/41 35/92 DATED 22.7.1992 (COPY AT PAGE 17 OF ASSESSEES PAPER BOOK ) WHICH CERTIFIES THAT AS PER THE RECORDS OF THE SOCIETY, THE MEMBERS HIP 237 STANDS IN THE JOINT NAME OF SMT. CHANAN DEVI SACHDEVA AND SHR I VIPIN MALIK, RESIDENT OF S-370, GREATER KAILASH, PART-II, NEW DE LHI. THERE IS NO MENTION WHATSOEVER TO SUGGEST OR INDICATE ANY INVOL VEMENT OF HUF IN ITA NO.1241 /2007 PAGE 7 THE SAID MEMBERSHIP OR VIP IN MALIK HOLDING THE MEMBERSHIP AS KARTA OF THE ASSESSEE-HUF . PAGE 11 OF THE PAPER BOOK IS A LETTER ISSUED BY THE SAID SOCIETY O N 19.10.1995 GIVING DETAILS OF AMOUNTS DEPOSITED BY THEM AGGREGATING TO RS.6,41,014/- UP TO 19.10.1995 WHICH AGAIN WAS ADDRESSED TO SMT. CHA NAN DEVI SACHDEVA AND SHRI VIPIN MALIK WITHOUT THERE BEING A NY MENTION OR INDICATION OF HUF. PAGE 12,14 AND 15 ARE THE PHOTOS TAT COPIES OF THE RECEIPTS ISSUED BY THE SAID SOCIETY FOR PAYMENTS MA DE BY THE ASSESSEE ON 31.10.95, 12.6.98 AND 19.5.99 WHICH AGAIN ARE IS SUED IN THE NAME OF TWO INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY MENTION OF HUF. PAGE 13 IS THE LEDGER ACCOUNT EXTRACT FROM THE BOOKS OF THE SOCIETY FOR THE PERIOD 1.4.96 TO 31.3.97 WITH A TITLE OF ACCOUNT BE ING 'CHANAN DEVI SACHDEVA AND VIPIN 237' WHICH AGAIN GOES TO SHOW TH AT THE MEMBERSHIP WAS STATED TO BE HELD JOINTLY BY THE SAI D INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY INDICATION OF HUF. THE ONLY DOCUMENT WHICH CONTAINS THE NAME OF HUF WITH REFERENCE TO SHRI VIP IN MALIK AS KARTA OF HUF IS A POSSESSION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE SO CIETY ON 30.4.2000 AND A PERUSAL OF THE COPY OF THE SAID CERTIFICATE P LACED AT PAGE NO.16 OF THE ASSESSEEA S PAPER BOOK SHOWS THAT THE WORDS '(KARTA), M/S VIPIN MALIK-HUF' ARE WRITTEN IN CAPITAL LETTERS AGA INST THE NAME OF SHRI VIPIN MALIK WHICH APPEARS IN SMALL LETTERS. EV EN THE MANNER IN WHICH THE SAID WORDS ARE WRITTEN IN THE SAID CERTIF ICATE SHOWS THAT THE ITA NO.897/DEL/2013 6 SAME ARE APPARENTLY ADDED/INSERTED AFTERWARDS. HAVI NG REGARD TO THIS PATENT ANOMALY APPARENT FROM THE SAID CERTIFICATE A S WELL AS KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACT THAT ALL THE LETTERS, CERTIFICATES AND RECEIPTS ISSUED BY THE SAID SOCIETY EARLIER DID NOT CONTAIN ANY REFERE NCE TO HUF, WE FIND IT DIFFICULT TO ACCEPT THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE TH AT THE MEMBERSHIP IN THE SAID SOCIETY WAS HELD BY IT IN THE CAPACITY OF HUF AND THE INVESTMENT MADE IN CONSTRUCTION OF THE SAID PROPERT Y WAS IN ITS OWN NAME. ON THE CONTRARY, THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE PLA CED ON RECORD CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE SAID MEMBERSHIP WAS STANDING IN THE JOINT NAME OF SMT. CHANAN DEVI SACHDEVA AND SHRI VIPIN MA LIK IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY AND AN ATTEMPT TO SHOW THE SAME AS HELD ON BEHALF OF THE HUF ON THE BASIS OF POSSESSION CERTIFICATE W AS CLEARLY MADE AS AN AFTERTHOUGHT TO CLAIM DEDUCTION U/S 54F FROM THE CAPITAL GAIN ARISING FROM SALE OF PROPERTY BELONGING TO HUF.' 10. THE LD. D.R. ALSO RELIED UPON THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR IN THE C ASE OF SHRI KALYA VS CIT AND OTHERS (SUPRA) WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT:- 7. A BARE READING OF SECTION 54B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT DOES NOT SUGGEST THAT ASSESSEE WOULD BE ENTITLED TO GET EXEM PTION FOR THE LAND PURCHASED BY HIM IN THE NAME OF HIS SON AND DAUGHTE R-IN-LAW. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE ALSO AFORESAID INFERENCE HAS NOT BEEN DRAWN. SAME IS QUESTION OF FACT. NO SUBSTANT IAL QUESTION OF LAW ARISES IN APPEAL. QUESTION WHETHER PURCHASE WAS BY ASSESSEE OR BY SON, IS A QUESTION OF FACT. 8. SECONDLY, THE WORD ASSESSEE USED IN THE I. T. ACT, NEEDS TO BE GIVEN A LEGAL INTERPRETATION AND NOT A LIBERAL I NTERPRETATION, AS CONTENDED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT. IF THE WORD ASSESSEE IS GIVEN A LIBERAL INTERPRETATION, IT WOULD BE TANT AMOUNT TO GIVING A FREE HAND TO THE ASSESSEE AND HIS LEGAL HEIRS AND I T SHALL CURTAIL THE REVENUE OF THE GOVERNMENT, WHICH THE LAW DOES NOT P ERMIT. 11. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. A.R. RELIED UPON THE ORD ER OF LD. CIT(A) AND CONTENDED INTER ALIA THAT NEW RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY AT SUSHANT LOK WAS PURCHASED IN THE NAME OF KARTA OF HUF AND HIS WIFE AND THE PAYMENT FOR THE ITA NO.897/DEL/2013 7 PURCHASE OF SUCH PROPERTY WAS MADE BY THE HUF PARTL Y OUT OF SALE PROCEEDS OF ORIGINAL RESIDENTIAL HOUSE PROPERTY AND FROM THE SALE OF SHARES OF PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY AND PARTLY OUT OF LOAN FINANCED BY ICICI BANK; THAT THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION HAS BEEN DULY RECORDED AS ASSE T IN THE STATEMENT OF AFFAIRS OF HUF AND THE LOAN FROM ICICI BANK AS LIAB ILITY AND PRIMARILY RELIED UPON THE FOLLOWING JUDGEMENTS: I) CIT VS DINESH MEGJI TOPRANI (HUF), I.T.A. NO. 3 404 OF 1010 II) JCIT VS SMT. ARMEDA K. BHAYA, 95 ITD 313 (MUM. ITAT), III) ITO VS RAMESH KUMAR (HUF) IN I.T.A. NO. 628/BA NG./2010, IV) CIT VS NATARAJAN, 154 TAXMAN 399 (MAD.) V) DIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) BANGALORE VS MRS. J ENNIFER BHIDE, 15 TAXMAN.COM 82 (KAR.) AND VI) HIRA LAL ARAM DAYAL VS CIT 122 ITSR 461 (P&H) 12. HOWEVER, IN VIEW OF THE UNDISPUTED FACTS AND CI RCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE AND JUDGEMENTS RELIED UPON AND SUBMISSIONS MAD E BY BOTH THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PARTIES, WE ARE O F THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYES O F LAW, HENCE, LIABLE TO BE SET ASIDE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: I) THAT THE FACTS OF THIS CASE ARE SQUARELY COVERED BY THE JUDGEMENT OF VIPIN MALIK (HUF) (SUPRA) DELIVERED BY THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN CATEGORICALLY HELD T HAT WHEN THE PROPERTY IS NOT PURCHASED WITH THE SALE PROCEEDS OF HUF PROPERTY IN THE NAME OF HUF ITSELF, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLE D FOR BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION U/S 54F OF THE ACT. SINCE IN THE INSTANT CASE THE PROPERTY WAS ALSO NOT PURCHASED WITH THE SALE PROCEEDS OF HU F PROPERTY, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED FOR BENEFIT U/S 54F OF THE ACT. II) THAT SINCE SHRI SUNIL ARORA AND MRS. VAISHALI ARORA VENDEE OF SALE DEED DATED 03.06.2008 OF THE PROPERTY AT SUSHANT LO K, PHASE I, HAVE ITA NO.897/DEL/2013 8 BECOME ABSOLUTE OWNER IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY, THEY ARE ESTOPPED BY THEIR OWN ACT AND CONDUCT FROM CEREMONIALLY DECL ARING THE SAID PROPERTY AS HUF PROPERTY APPARENTLY FOR CLAIMING TA X BENEFIT. III) THAT MERELY BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT PART OF SALE P ROCEEDS OF HUF PROPERTY HAVE BEEN INVESTED IN PURCHASING THE SUSHA NT LOK PROPERTY, THE SAME CANNOT BE TREATED AS HUF PROPERTY IN ANY M ANNER WHATSOEVER. BECAUSE SUBSTANTIAL PART OF INVESTMENT ON THE PURCHASE OF NEW PROPERTY, THAT TOO IN THE INDIVIDUAL NAME OF SUNIL ARORA AND HIS WIFE SMT. VAISHALI SUNIL, HAVE BEEN MADE FROM OTHER SOURCES. IV) THAT MERELY BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT THE PROPERTY P URCHASED IS RECORDED AS THE ASSET IN THE STATEMENT OF AFFAIRS OF HUF AND THE LOAN FROM ICICI BANK AS A LIABILITY, THE SAME CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS HUF PROPERTY AS THE SAME WAS NEVER PURCHASED BY SUNIL ARORA (HUF) A ND THE STATEMENT OF AFFAIRS IS A DOCUMENT PREPARED BY THE ASSESSEE AS AN AFTERTHOUGHT TO CLAIM EXEMPTION U/S 54F OF THE ACT. V) THAT THE JUDGEMENT ENTITLED AS CIT VS DINESH MEGJI TOPRANI (SUPRA) RELIED UPON BY LD. A.R. IS DISTINGUISHABLE ON THE F ACTS FOR THE REASON THAT IN THE SAID CASE, IMMOVABLE PROPERTY WAS PURCH ASED FROM THE HUF ACCOUNT, ON THE PURCHASE DOCUMENTS PAN OF HUF W AS RECORDED AND THAT THE INCOME RECEIVED FROM THAT PROPERTY PUR CHASED HAVE BEEN ASSESSED TO TAX IN THE HANDS OF HUF FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 PROVIDING THE DISTINCTIVE STATUS OF HUF PROPERTY PU RCHASED FROM THE CAPITAL GAIN IN THE SAID CASE, WHICH IS MISSING IN THE PRESENT CASE. VI) THAT IN THE INSTANT CASE, ASSESSEE IS STRICTLY SUNI L ARORA HUF WHEN THE CAPITAL GAIN HAS BEEN INVESTED TO PURCHASE THE OTHE R PROPERTY IN THE ITA NO.897/DEL/2013 9 INDIVIDUAL NAMES OF SUNIL ARORA AND VAISHALI SUNIL TO THE PREJUDICE OF OTHER MEMBERS OF HUF, NO BENEFIT U/S 54F CAN BE EXT ENDED. VII) THAT THE JUDGEMENT ENTITLED ITO VS RAMESH KUMAR (HU F) (SUPRA) IS ALSO NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE IN THE FACE OF THE LAW LAID DOWN BY HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF VIPIN MALIK (HUF) (SUPRA). VIII) THAT THE ACCOUNT STATEMENT ISSUED BY ICICI HOME FIN ANCE FOR THE RELEVANT PERIOD LYING AT PAGE 23 OF THE PAPER BOOK OF THE ASSESSEE, GOES TO PROVE THAT THE LOAN WAS TAKEN BY VAISHALI S UNIL AND SUNIL ARORA AND ASSOCIATES FOR PURCHASE OF SUSHANT LOK PR OPERTY BEING THEIR INDIVIDUAL LIABILITY AND OTHER MEMBERS OF SUN IL ARORA (HUF) ARE NEITHER LIABLE TO PAY THE LOAN NOR THEY ARE ENTITLE D TO GET ANY BENEFIT OUT OF THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION. IX) THAT THE INTENTION OF LEGISLATURE TO LEGISLATE SECT ION 54 AND 54F IS TO ENSURE THE REINVESTMENT OF FUNDS IN RESIDENTIAL PRO PERTY BY THE ASSESSEE ITSELF. BUT IN THE INSTANT CASE, BASIC CO NDITION TO GET THE BENEFIT OF SECTION 54 AND 54F HAS NOT BEEN COMPLIED WITH AS THE FUNDS RAISED FROM THE SALE PROCEEDS OF HUF PROPERTY HAVE BEEN INVESTED BY THE MEMBERS TO PURCHASE THE PROPERTY IN THEIR INDIV IDUAL NAMES, WHICH DOES NOT FALL IN THE CATEGORY OF ASSESSEE I.E. SUNI L ARORA (HUF). X) THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED BY LD. CIT( A) IN MECHANICAL MANNER BY IGNORING THE LAW LAID DOWN BY HON'BLE JUR ISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF VIPIN MALIK (SUPRA). XI) THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO INVEST THE CA PITAL GAIN IN HANDS RECEIVED FORM SALE PROCEEDS OF HUF PROPERTY AS REQU IRED U/S 54 AND 54F OF THE ACT, IN THE NAME OF ASSESSEE ITSELF, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ITA NO.897/DEL/2013 10 ENTITLED FOR ANY TAX BENEFIT FOR THE PROPERTY PURCH ASED IN THE NAME OF INDIVIDUALS AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS CASE . 13. IN VIEW OF WHAT HAS BEEN DISCUSSED ABOVE, THE P RESENT APPEAL IS HEREBY ALLOWED AND CONSEQUENTLY, IMPUGNED ORDER PAS SED BY LD. CIT(A) IS SET ASIDE. 14. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY REVENUE IS ALLOW ED. 15. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14 TH SEP., 2015. SD./- SD./- ( N. K. SAINI) (KULDIP SING H) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE: 14.09. 2015 SP COPY FORWARDED TO:- 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT (A)-, NEW DELHI. 5. THE DR, ITAT, LOKNAYAK BHAWAN, KHAN MARKET, NEW DEL HI. TRUE COPY. BY ORDER (ITAT, NEW DELHI). S.NO. DETAILS DATE INITIALS DESIGNATION 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON 27/8 SR. PS/PS 2 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 28/8,2,4,10/9 SR. PS/PS 3 DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4 DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER AM/AM 5 APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. PS/PS 21/9 SR. PS/PS 6 KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 14/9 SR. PS/PS 7 FILE SENT TO BENCH CLERK 21/9 SR. PS/PS 8 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO HEAD CLERK 9 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO A.R. 10 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER