Section 54 – Assessee is entitled to deduction u/s. 54 in respect of the entire entire payment for purchase of new residential house though the new residential house is purchased jointly in the name of the assessee and his brother.

10.  [2017] 81 taxmann.com 16
(Mumbai – Trib.)

Jitendra V. Faria vs. ITO

A.Y.:2010-11
Date of Order: 27^th April, 2017

FACTS 

The assessee jointly with
his wife was the owner of a flat in Jai Mahavir Apartment at Andheri (West).
During the previous year relevant to the assessment year under consideration,
the said flat was sold for Rs.1,02,55,000/-.The assessee computed long term
capital gains at Rs. 43,01,665/- being 50% share in the property. The assessee
invested Rs. 42,01,665/- (sic Rs. 42,65,858) in another residential property
i.e., flat in “Parag” at Andheri (West). The assessee claimed
exemption u/s. 54 of Rs. 42,01,665/- (sic Rs. 42,65,858) plus stamp duty and registration
charges and offered capital gains at Rs. 35,809/-. The name of the assessee’s
brother was added in the Agreement of new property purchased, for the sake of
convenience. However, the entire investment for the purchase of new property
i.e. Parag, along with stamp duty and registration charges were paid by the
assessee.  Since, the new house was
purchased by the assessee by incorporating name of his brother, the Assessing
Officer (AO) restricted deduction u/s.54 to the extent of 50% of the value of
new property. He restricted exemption u/s. 54 to Rs.21,32,929/- i.e., 50% of
the cost of the new flat.

Aggrieved, the assessee
preferred an appeal to the CIT(A) who directed the AO to tax the entire capital
gains in assessee’s hands by disregarding the fact that 50% of the old house
was owned by his wife.

Aggrieved, the assessee
preferred an appeal to the Tribunal.

HELD 

The Tribunal noted that
the wife has already offered her share of capital gains in her return of income
filed with the Department. Thus, there is no justification in the order of
CIT(A) for taxing the entire capital gains in the hands of the assessee. It
held that only 50% of the capital gain is chargeable to tax in the hands of the
assessee.

As regards the allegation
of the AO that since assessee has incorporated name of his brother, he is
entitled to only 50% of the investment so made in the new house, the Tribunal
noted that the AO has in the assessment order categorically stated that the
entire cost of the new property was borne by the assessee though the property
was purchased in joint name of the assessee with his brother. The Tribunal
observed that the issue is covered by the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court
in the case of CIT vs. Ravinder Kumar Arora [2012] 342 ITR 38/[2011] 203
Taxman 289/15 taxmann.com 307 (Delhi) wherein the High Court held that the
assessee was entitled to full exemption u/s. 54F when the full amount was
invested by the assessee even though the property was purchased in the joint
names of the assessee and his wife. It noted that this decision of the Delhi
High Court was subsequently followed by Delhi High Court itself in case of CIT
vs. Kamal Wahal [2013] 351 ITR 4/214 Taxman 287/30 taxmann.com 34 (Delhi).
Following the ratio of the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT
vs. Ravinder Kumar Arora (supra), the Tribunal held that the AO was not
justified in restricting the exemption u/s. 54 to 50% of the investment in
purchase of new residential house.