ITO Non Corporate WArd 20(4), CHENNAI V. Immnuel Charles, CHENNAI

ITA 2366/CHNY/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9072 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-12-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 16-08-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S BHARATHCITC R
• Assessee Lawyers: K RAVI
• Section: 54F

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH : CHENNAI , . , BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NO.2366/CHNY/2018 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORPORATE WARD 20(4), CHENNAI 600 034. VS. SHRI IMMNUEL CHARLES , I,SOMU GARDEN,2 ND LANE,ROYAPURAM, CHENNAI 600 013. [PAN ADRPC 8524 D] ( / APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) ! ' # / APPELLANT BY : MR.S.BHARATH,CIT,C.R $% ! ' # /RESPONDENT BY : MR.K.RAVI ADVOCATE & ' ' () / DATE OF HEARING : 13 - 12 - 201 8 * ' () / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13 - 12 - 201 8 / O R D E R PER GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-14, CHENNA I IN ITA NO.208/CIT(A)-14/2015-16 DATED 23.05.2018 FOR T HE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. ITA NO.2366/CHNY/2018 :- 2 -: 2. MR.S.BHARATH REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE AND MR.K.RAVI REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. IN THIS APPEAL, THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLL OWING GROUNDS:- 1. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS CONTRARY TO FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 2.1 THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITI ON TOWARDS DENIAL OF 50% DEDUCTION CLAIM U/S 54F OF RS.73,33,1 10/-. 2.2 THE LEARNED CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED TH E FACT THAT THE PROVISION OF SECTION 54/54F DOES NOT INCLUDE INVEST MENT MADE JOINTLY WITH A RELATIVE, WHO IS NOT A LEGAL HEIR AN D IT IS IMMATERIAL THAT NO CONTRIBUTION WAS MADE BY THAT RELATIVE. 2.3 THE LEARNED CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED THE RATIO OF THE DECISIONS IN THE CASE OF PRAKASH VS ITO(BOM) 312 IT R 40, GANTA VIJAY LAKSHMI VS ITO (AP) 229 TAXMAN 594, AND D.DEV ADASS VS ITO (ITAT CHENNAI) 48 ITR (TRIB) 613. 4. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LD.D.R THAT ONLY ISSUE RAI SED IN THIS APPEAL WAS AGAINST THE ACTION OF LD.CIT(A) IN ALLOW ING THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.54F OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF PURCHASE OF A NEW PROPERTY ALONG WITH HIS BROTHER, MR.DENIEL MANOHAR RAJ. THE LD.D.R VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LD. ASSESSING OFF ICER. ITA NO.2366/CHNY/2018 :- 3 -: 5. IN REPLY, LD.A.R SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HA D SOLD A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY AND REINVESTED IN OTHER INVEST MENTS VIZ. CAPITAL GAINS INVESTMENT SCHEME, RURAL ELECTRIFICATION BOND S ALONG WITH HIS BROTHER AND ANOTHER RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. IT WAS A SUB MISSION THAT AS THE ASSESSEE HAD INVESTED JOINTLY WITH HIS BROTHER, WHO IS NOT A LEGAL HEIR, THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAD DENIED THE DEDUCTION U/S.54F OF THE ACT. IT WAS A FURTHER SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSEES BRO THER HAD ALSO CATEGORICALLY GIVEN A CERTIFICATE THAT HE HAS NOT I NVESTED ANY MONEY IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE BY THE AS SESSEE. IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT LD.CIT(A) HAD FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF CIT VS.V.NATA RAJAN,(2006) 154 TAXMAAN 399 (MAD), AS ALSO IN THE CASE OF DIT VS. M RS.JENNIFER BHIDE IN 15 TAXMAN.COM KAR(2011) AND IN THE CASE OF CIT V S.RAVINDER KUMAR ARORA (2011) 15 TAXMANN.COM 307(DELHI). THE L D.A.R VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS). 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. ADM ITTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS INVESTED HIS ENTIRE CAPITAL GAINS IN T HE ACQUISITION OF A NEW RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. ADMITTEDLY, THE JOINT OWN ER HAS ALSO CATEGORICALLY ADMITTED THAT HE HAS NOT MADE ANY INV ESTMENTS IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPERTY IN THE NAME OF THE ASS ESSEE. JUST BECAUSE, THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE AN INVESTMENT AND H AS HELD IT JOINTLY WITH THE ASSESSEES BROTHER, IT WOULD NOT DISENTITL E THE ASSESSEE TO ITA NO.2366/CHNY/2018 :- 4 -: CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.54F OF THE ACT, ESPECIALLY W HEN HE IS THE ONE, WHO HAS MADE THE ENTIRE INVESTMENTS. THIS BEING SO AND AS IT IS NOTICED THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS FOLLOWED THE JUDICIA L DISCIPLINE IN FOLLOWING THE DECISIONS OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL, WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT (APPEALS) AND CONSEQUENTLY, THE SAME HAS BEEN UPHELD. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DI SMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AFTER CONCLUSION OF HEARING ON 13 TH DECEMBER, 2018, AT CHENNAI. SD/ - SD/ - ( . ) (A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY) ! '# / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( ) (GEORGE MATHAN) $ '# / JUDICIAL MEMBER - ' / CHENNAI . / DATED: 13 TH DECEMBER, 2018. K S SUNDARAM / ' $(01 2 1( / COPY TO: 1 . ! / APPELLANT 4. & 3( / CIT 2. $% ! / RESPONDENT 5. 145 $(6 / DR 3. & 3( () / CIT(A) 6. 57 8' / GF