Vijaya Subramani, CHENNAI V. ACIT Non Corporate Circle 10(1), CHENNAI

CO 10/CHNY/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6703 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 28-02-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 21-02-2019
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A SRINIVASAN
• Section: 54F

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH: CHENNAI . . . , , & BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.1353/CHNY/2018 ' ' /ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 & CO NO.10/CHNY/2019 (IN ITA NO.1353/CHNY/2018) THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF- INCOME TAX, NON-CORPORATE CIRCLE-10(1), 121, M.G.ROAD, CHENNAI-600 034. VS. SMT.VIJAYA SUBRAMANI, NO.30, WEST STREET, KILPAUK, CHENNAI-600 010. [PAN: AALPS 2965 B ] ( * /APPELLANT) ( +,* /RESPONDENT/CROSS OBJECTOR) * - / APPELLANT BY : MR. AR.V.SREENIVASAN, JCIT +, * - /RESPONDENT BY : MR. A. SRINIVASAN, FCA - /DATE OF HEARING : 27.02.2019 - /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28.02.2019 / O R D E R PER INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE DIRECTED AG AINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-12 , CHENNAI, DATED 19.02.2018 FOR THE AY 2012-13. 2. THE REVENUE RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPE AL: ITA NO.1353/CHNY/2018 & CO NO.10/CHNY/2019 :- 2 -: 1. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS CONTRARY TO LA W AND FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 2.1 THE LEARNED C1T(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLO WANCE OF 50% OF THE TOTAL INVESTMENT MADE IN RESIDENTIAL HOUSE IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESS EE AND HER HUSBAND WITHOUT MENTIONING THE SHARE RATIO IN THE SALE DEED OF UNDIVIDED SHARE OF LAND AND THE CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT. 2.2 THE LEARNED CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACT THAT SECTION 54F ENVISAGES THAT THE ASSESSEE WILL BE ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM DEDUCTION ON LY IF THE ASSESSEE PURCHASES THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE OR CONSTRUCTS THE SAME IN HER OWN NAME. 2.3 IT IS SUBMITTED THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ONLY 50% OF THE OWNERSHIP IN THE PROPERTY AS PER THE REGISTERED SAL E DEED, THE LD.CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 3. FOR THESE AND OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE ADDUCED AT THE TIME OF HEARING, IT IS PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A) MAY BE SET ASI DE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE APPELLA NT IS AN INDIVIDUAL ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TUPPERWARE PRODUCTS. THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE AY 2012-13 WAS FILED ON 11.04.2012 DISCLOSING T OTAL INCOME OF RS.37,23,140/-. DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT T O THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE APPELLANT SOLD PROPERTY ON 27.05.2011 FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.2,12,73,937/-. THE SALE CONSIDE RATION WAS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN INVESTED IN PURCHASING LAND AS WELL AS CO NSTRUCTION OF HOUSE WHICH IS JOINTLY OWNED BY HIS WIFE. ACCORDINGLY, T HE APPELLANT HAD CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S.54F IN RESPECT OF AMOUNT SPENT TOWARD S PURCHASE OF LAND AS WELL AS CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSE OF RS.2,06,34,561/-. HOWEVER, THE AO RESTRICTED THE EXEMPTION U/S.54F TO THE EXTENT OF 5 0% HOLDING THAT THE APPELLANT IS A CO-OWNER OF THE PROPERTY ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF 50% OF THE PROPERTY. FURTHER, THE AO ALSO RESTRICTED THE EXEM PTION U/S.54F IN RESPECT OF HOUSING LOAN AVAILED RS.35.00 LAKHS. THE AO ALS O MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.11,77,905/- AS UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITS AND FIN ALLY COMPLETED THE ITA NO.1353/CHNY/2018 & CO NO.10/CHNY/2019 :- 3 -: ASSESSMENT AFTER MAKING ABOVE DISALLOWANCE VIDE ORD ER DATED 28.03.2015 PASSED U/S.143(3) AT A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1,76,23,9 47/-. 4. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ABOVE ADDITION, THE ASSES SEE FIELD AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A), WHO VIDE IMPUGNED ORDER ALLOW ED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE U/S.54F TO THE EXTENT OF ACTUAL INVESTMEN TS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO EVEN IN RESPECT OF THE HOUSING LO AN AVAILED BY HOLDING THAT THE RELIEF U/S.54F IS AVAILABLE EVEN IN RESPEC T OF THE BORROWED FUNDS PLACING RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE BOM BAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. DR.PARISHCA AND ALSO DELETED THE ADD ITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITS OF RS.11,77,909/- CONSIDE RING THE EXPLANATION OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE CASH DEPOSITS WERE MADE O UT OF THE AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM AGENTS OF TUPPERWARE. 5. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A), T HE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. IT IS CONTENDED THAT THE LD.CIT( A) OUGHT NOT HAVE GRANTED RELIEF U/S.54F TO THE EXTENT OF INVESTMENT IN AS MUCH AS THE ASSESSEE IS THE OWNER OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF 50% OF THE PROPERTY PURCHASED. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD.COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE EXEMPTION U/S.54F SHOULD BE GRAN TED TO THE EXTENT OF ACTUAL INVESTMENT HAVING REGARD TO THE PROVISIONS O F SEC.45 TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, 1882. WE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO STIPULATION UNDER ITA NO.1353/CHNY/2018 & CO NO.10/CHNY/2019 :- 4 -: THE PROVISIONS OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, THAT FOR TH E PURPOSE OF EXEMPTION U/S.54F, THE NEW HOUSE PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE SH OULD BE REGISTERED IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE ONLY. IN THIS CONNECTION, HE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. RAVINDER KUMAR ARORA REPORTED IN [2011] 342 ITR 38, 30 TAXMA NN.COM 34 (DELHI) AND CIT V. V.NATARAJAN REPORTED IN 287 ITR 271 (MAD RAS HIGH COURT). 7. WE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE M ATERIALS PLACED ON RECORD. 8. THE SHORT ISSUE THAT ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS WHETHER THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR EXEMPTION U/S.54F IN RESPECT OF THE INVESTMENTS IN THE NEW HOUSE JOINTLY HELD ALONG WITH HIS WIFE TO THE EXTEN T OF INVESTMENT OR 50% OF THE COST OF THE NEW HOUSE. THERE IS NO REQUIREM ENT UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 THAT NEW HOUSE P URCHASE SHOULD BE HELD IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE ALONE. IT WOULD B E SUFFICE IF THE INVESTMENTS ARE MADE IN THE NEW HOUSE OUT OF THE SA LE PROCEEDS OF THE ORIGINAL ASSET. RELIANCE IN THIS REGARD CAN BE PLAC ED ON JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE SUPRA. THE FINDINGS OF THE LD.CIT(A) ARE BASED ON THE LAW ENUNCIATED IN THE ABOVE DECISIONS AND WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON T O INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) AND HENCE, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ITA NO.1353/CHNY/2018 & CO NO.10/CHNY/2019 :- 5 -: 9. THE CROSS-OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED BOTH ON ACCOUNT OF DELAY AS WELL AS THE MERITS AS CO BECOME S INFRUCTUOUS IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACTS THAT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REV ENUE IS DISMISSED. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED AND THE CROSS-OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THE 28 TH FEBRUARY, 2019 IN CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . . . ) (N.R.S. GANESAN) /JUDICIAL MEMBER ( ) ( INTURI RAMA RAO ) /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /CHENNAI, 3 /DATED: 28 TH FEBRUARY, 2019. TLN - +45 65 /COPY TO: 1. * /APPELLANT 4. 7 /CIT 2. +,* /RESPONDENT 5. 5 + /DR 3. 7 ( ) /CIT(A) 6. ' /GF