Facts:
a)
Assessee had sold a capital
asset and invested a part of sales consideration in a new residential house so
as to claim exemption under section 54F.
b)
She owned more than one
residential house on date of transfer of original asset. However, one
residential house was owned by her minor daughter.
c)
Commissioner denied Section 54F
exemption on the ground that assessee would be deemed as owner of house owned
by her minor daughters. The aggrieved-assessee filed the instant appeal.
The Tribunal held in
favour of assessee as under:
1)
By virtue of fiction created by
Section 64(1A), the incomes of properties owned by the two minor daughters were
clubbed in the hands of the assessee since the date of purchase of the said
properties.
2)
The investment for purchase of
said properties has come from the independent sources of these daughters, which
has been accepted by the department.
3)
Simply by virtue of inclusion
of rental income of minor daughters under Section 64(1A) in the income of
assessee, it could not be presumed that the assessee was owner of property
purchased by minor daughters. Thus, the findings of the learned CIT were
factually incorrect and legally unsustainable. Hence, assessee would be
eligible for exemption under Section 54F. - SMT. S. UMA DEVI v. COMMISSIONER OF
INCOME-TAX [2015] 62 taxmann.com 64 (Hyderabad - Trib.)
No comments:
Post a Comment