Sri. A.S. Vishwanath, Bangalore V. ITO, Bangalore

ITA 1021/BANG/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 135 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1445 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-03-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 30-03-2011
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 20-08-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AMRITA RANJAN
• Assessee Lawyers: C BASAVAIAH
• Section: 54

Judgement Text

ITA.1021/BANG/2010 PAG E - 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH 'A', BANGALORE BEFORE DR. O. K. NARAYANAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A NO.1021/BANG/2010 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07) SHRI. A. S. VISWANATH, NO.124/43, NEW NO.19, 11TH CROSS, 20TH MAIN, .. A PPELLANT PADMANABHANAGAR, BANGALORE 560 070 V. INCOME-TAX OFFICER., WARD -4 (2), BANGALORE .. RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI. C. BASAVAIAH, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SMT. AMRITA RANJAN, ADDL.CIT O R D E R PER DR. O. K. NARAYANAN, VICE PRESIDENT : THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE RELEVAN T ASSESSMENT YEAR IS 2006-07. THE APPEAL IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A)-II, AT BANGALORE, DAT ED.23.09.2009 AND ARISES OUT OF THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED U/S.143( 3) OF THE INCOME- TAX ACT, 1961. 02. THERE IS A DELAY OF 129 DAYS IN FILING THIS APP EAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. BEFORE APPROACHING THE TRIBUNAL THE ASSE SSEE HAD GONE ITA.1021/BANG/2010 PAG E - 2 BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA IN A WRI T PETITION FOR INSTANT REMEDY. BUT THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT DECLINE D TO INTERFERE IN THE MATTER AS THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT EXHAUSTED THE ST ATUTORY REMEDIES AVAILABLE BEFORE HIM. THE HON'BLE COURT DISMISSED THE WRIT PETITION OF THE ASSESSEE WITH A DIRECTION THAT THE ASSESSEE MAY APPROACH THE APPROPRIATE APPELLATE AUTHORITY WITH A CONDONATION PETITION EXPLAINING THE REASON AND THE FACT THAT THE ISSUE WAS LOCKED U P BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT. IT IS THEREFORE CLEAR THAT THE DELAY W AS CAUSED FOR THE REASON THAT THE MATTER WAS PREMATURELY TAKEN BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT. THIS IS A GOOD AND SUFFICIENT REASON TO CON DONE THE DELAY. ACCORDINGLY, THE DELAY CAUSED IN FILING THIS APPEAL IS CONDONED AND THE APPEAL IS ADMITTED ON THE ROLLS OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR HEARING AND DISPOSAL. 03. THE ONLY ISSUE RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS AGAINST THE REFUSAL OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES IN GIVING THE DEDUCTION AV AILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE U/S.54 OF THE IT ACT, 1961. THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD HIS RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY AND APPLIED THE SALE CONSIDERA TION IN ACQUIRING TWO RESIDENTIAL HOUSES. THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY LI MITED THE SCOPE OF EXEMPTION U/S.54 TO ONE RESIDENTIAL UNIT HAVING A H IGHER PURCHASE VALUE AND DECLINED TO GRANT EXEMPTION ON THE PURCHA SE VALUE OF THE SECOND RESIDENTIAL UNIT. ITA.1021/BANG/2010 PAG E - 3 04. THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE HON'BLE J URISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TA X AND ANOTHER V. K. G. RUKMINIAMMA, REPORTED IN ILR (2010) KAR 4711. IN THE SAID CASE, THE HON'BLE COURT HELD THAT THE EXPRESSION 'A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE' IS USED IN SECTION 54 MAKES IT CLEAR THAT IT WAS NOT T HE INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATION TO CONVEY THE MEANING THAT IT REFERS TO A SINGLE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. IF THAT WAS THE INTENTION, THEY WOULD HAVE USED THE WORK 'ONE'. AS IN THE EARLIER PART, THE WORDS USED ARE BUILDING S OR LANDS WHICH ARE PLURAL IN NUMBER AND THAT IS REFERRED TO AS 'A RESI DENTIAL HOUSE', THE ORIGINAL ASSET. AN ASSET NEWLY ACQUIRED AFTER THE SALE OF THE ORIGINAL ASSET ALSO CAN BE BUILDINGS OR LANDS APPURTENANT TH ERETO, WHICH ALSO SHOULD BE 'A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE', THEREFORE THE LET TER 'A' IN THE CONTEXT IT IS USED SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRUED AS MEANING 'SINGULA R'. BUT, BEING AN INDEFINITE ARTICLE, THE SAID EXPRESSION SHOULD BE R EAD IN CONSONANCE WITH THE OTHER WORDS 'BUILDINGS' AND 'LANDS' AND, T HEREFORE, THE SINGULAR 'A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE' ALSO PERMITS USE OF PLURAL BY VIRTUE OF SECTION 13(2) OF THE GENERAL CLAUSES ACT. 05. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DECLARATION OF LAW BY THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, WE FIND THAT THE CLAIM O F DEDUCTION BY THE ASSESSEE U/S.54 ON BOTH THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSES ARE ELIGIBLE FOR ITA.1021/BANG/2010 PAG E - 4 DEDUCTION. THEREFORE, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFI CER TO EXTENT THE BENEFIT OF SECTION 54 TO BOTH THE HOUSES PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE OUT OF THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED ON SALE. 06. IN RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF HEARI NG ON THIS DAY, THE 30TH OF MARCH, 2011, AT BANGALORE. SD/- SD/- (P. MADHAVI DEVI) (DR. O. K. NARAYANAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT