Shri Sanjeev Jain, Chandigarh V. ITO, W-2(3), Chandigarh

ITA 1089/CHANDI/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5102 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-03-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 29-06-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGHSR
• Keywords: Gift
• Section: 54

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES, SMC, CHANDIGARH BEFORE MS. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 1089/CHD/2017 ASSESSMENT Y EAR: 2012-13 SHRI SANJEEV JAIN, VS. THE ITO, CABIN NO. 7-A, 1 ST FLOOR, WARD 2(3), SCO 60-62, SECTOR 17, CHANDIGARH. CHANDIGARH. PAN NO. ABJPJ5533H (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI TEJ MOHAN SINGH RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MANJIT SINGH,SR.DR DATE OF HEARING : 09.01.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 14.03.2018 ORDER THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ASS AILING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 22/05/2017 OF CIT(A)-I, GURGAON PERTAINING TO 2012 13 ASSESSMENT YEAR ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1) THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S)-L,GURGAON HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND HAS THEREBY ERRED IN NOT GRANTING DEDUCTION U/S 54 OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 IN RESPECT OF THE STUMP DUTY CHARGES PAID IN RESPECT OF MOTHER. 2) THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S)- L,GURGAON HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND HAS THEREBY ERRED ADOPTING THE VALUE OF HOUSE(L/3 RD SHARE) AS ON 01-04-1981 AT RS. 3,00,000/- INSTEAD OF RS. 3,50,000/- AS DECLARED BY THE APPELLANT ON FILIMICAL GROUNDS. 2. THE RELEVANT FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER IN THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN REGARD TO SALE OF PROPERTY MADE A DISALLOWANCE OF A SUM OF RS. 1,21,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF REGISTR ATION CHARGES OF PLOT PAID BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE SHARE BELONGING TO H IS MOTHER. THE ASSESSEES CLAIM THAT THE COST OF STAMP DUTY HAVING BEE N PAID BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. APART FR OM THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO CHALLENGED THE REJECTION OF ASSESSEES CLAIM OF COST OF PURCHASE VALUE OF HOUSE FOR INDEXATION AT RS. 3,50,070/- WHICH THE AO HELD AT RS. 3 LAKH AS ON 01/04/1981. 2.1 THE ISSUES WERE CARRIED IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). TH E CIT(A) CONSIDERED THE RELEVANT FACTS QUA THE 1 ST ISSUE HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED BY THE ITA 1089/CHD/2017 A.Y. 2012-13 PAGE 2 OF 3 CIT-A IN PARA-3.1 OF HIS ORDER. FOR THE SAKE OF COMPLETENE SS THESE ARE REPRODUCED HEREUNDER : 3.1 BRIEF FACTS ARE THAT RETURN DECLARING INCOME OF RS. 13,30,570/- WAS FILED ON 26/12/2012. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE APPELLANT HAD EARNED CAPITAL GAINS ON WHICH THE APPELLANT HAD CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 54 OF THE IT ACT. THE DEDUCTION WAS CLAIMED ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT TOWA RDS CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSE JOINTLY IN THE NAME OF THE APPELLANT AND SMT. VEENA RANI JAIN. THE AO NOTED THAT ALTHOUGH THE APPELLANT HAD CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 54 ONLY ON THE HALF SHARE OF PLOT AND HALF SHARE OF EXPENSES INCURRED BUT THE REGISTR ATION FEE OF RS. 2,42,000/- HAD BEEN CLAIMED FULLY BY THE APPELLANT FOR THE PURPOSE OF C LAIMING DEDUCTION U/S 54. AFTER GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT, THE AO REST RICTED THE DEDUCTION ON THIS ACCOUNT TO 50% OF THE REGISTRATION FEE PAID. DISA LLOWANCE OF RS. 1,21,000/- WAS ACCORDINGLY MADE. 2.2 CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS WHICH ARE REITERATED IN THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ADDITION WAS CONFIRMED BY HIM HOLDING AS UNDER : 3.3 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE APPELLANT'S S UBMISSIONS. IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE FACTS RECORDED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE APPELLANT HAD ONLY HALF SHARE IN THE PLOT AND THE HOUSE CONSTRUCTED OVER IT. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE AP PELLANT WAS LIABLE TO PAY ONLY 50% OF THE REGISTRATION CHARGES AND AS SUCH CAN CLAIM BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION U/S 54 WITH REGARD TO ONLY 50% OF THE REGISTRATION CHARGES. THE FACT THAT THE APPE LLANT HAD PAID THE WHOLE OF REGISTRATION CHARGES DOES NOT ENTITLE THE APPELLANT TO CLAIM FULL AMOUNT AS DEDUCTION U/S 54. THE AMOUNT PAID BY THE APPELLANT ON BEHALF OF SMT. VEENA RANI JAIN CAN AT BEST BE CONSIDERED AS A LOAN OR GIFT TO SMT. VEENA RANI JAIN AND THE DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF SUC H INVESTMENT IN REGISTRATION FEE CAN BE CLAIMED ONLY BY SMT. VEENA RANI JAIN WHO WAS LIABLE TO PAY THIS AMOUNT. THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO IS CONFIRMED. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 2.3 BOTH THE PARTIES HAVE BEEN HEARD. IT IS A MATTER OF RECORD THAT STAMP DUTY CHARGES QUA THE SAID PROPERTY HAVE BEEN PAID. IT IS SEEN QUA THE ISSUE THAT THE STAMP DUTY CHARGES HAVE ADMITTEDLY BEEN PAID BY THE ASSESSEE ON WHICH THERE IS NO DISPUTE. IT IS FURTHER A MATTER OF RECO RD THAT SMT. VEENA RANI JAIN HAS NOT CLAIMED THE SAID EXPENSES ALSO. ACCORDING LY, AFTER HEARING THE PARTIES, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT IN THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE AS HAVE BEEN SET OU T HEREINABOVE, THE ASSESSEE DESERVES TO SUCCEED ON GROUND NO. 1 AS IT IS THE COST INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE ON WHICH THERE IS NO DISPUTE AND THE SAID EXPENSES HAVING NOT BEEN CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEES MOTHER IS A FACT ON REC ORD. IN THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE, THE CONCLU SION OF THE TAX AUTHORITIES TO DENY THE CLAIM OF STAMP DUTY CANNOT BE U PHELD. AO IS DIRECTED TO GRANT NECESSARY RELIEF. SAID ORDER WAS ANNO UNCED THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF HEARING ITSELF. 3. THE LD. AR QUA THE 2 ND ISSUE THOUGH RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE ITAT HOWEVER, THE SPECIFIC DISTINCTION DRAWN OUT BY THE C IT(A) QUA THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEE'S CASE AND SHRI BALBIR LAKHANPALS CASE WAS NOT UPSET BY HIM EITHER ON FACTS OR POSITION OF LAW. THE LD. SR.DR RELIED U PON THE IMPUGNED ORDER. ITA 1089/CHD/2017 A.Y. 2012-13 PAGE 3 OF 3 3.1. I HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATER IAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THE FACTS AS THEY STAND, I FIND NO GOOD REAS ON TO VARY THE CONCLUSION ARRIVED AT BY THE CIT-A IN PARA-4.3. FOR READ Y REFERENCE THE SAME IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER : 4.3 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE APPELLANT'S S UBMISSIONS. THE AO HAS BASED THE ESTIMATION OF FARE MARKET VALUE ON THE INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM ESTATE OFFICER IN THE CASE OF APPELLANT'S OWN BROTHER SH. PRADEEP JAIN WHO WAS A CO-OWNER OF THE HOUSE SOLD BY THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE IT AT CHANDIGARH BENCH IN THE CASE OF SH. BALBIR LAKHANPA L V/S JCIT ITA NO. 77/CHD/2016 ON THE ISSUE OF ESTIMATION OF FARE MARKET VALUE. I DO NOT AGREE WITH THIS CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT. THE HON'BLE IT AT HAD ESTIMATED THE FA RE MARKET VALUE IN THE CASE OF SH. BALBIR LAKHANPAL (SUPRA) BASED ON THE FACTS AND CIR CUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. IN THE APPELLANT'S CASE, THERE WAS RELIABLE EVIDENCE IN TH E FORM OF INFORMATION FROM THE ESTATE OFFICER ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE AO ESTIMATED THE FARE MARKET VALUE. THERE IS NOTHING TO SHOW THAT THE FARE MARKET VALUE ESTIMATED BY THE AO IS NOT JUSTIFIED. AS SUCH, THE FARE MARKET VALUE ADOPTED BY THE AO IS UPHELD. THIS GROU ND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 4. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLO WED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14 TH MARCH,2018. SD/- (DIVA SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER POONAM COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR ASSTT. REGISTRAR ITAT,CHANDIGARH.