ASHOK G. CHAUHAN, MUMBAI V. ADDL CIT - 32, MUMBAI

ITA 2876/MUM/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5555 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-07-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 20-04-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SAURABH DES
• Keywords: Capital asset; Gift; Deemed to accrue or arise in india; Additional evidence; Surrender of tenancy right
• Section: 143(3); 54F; 27; 54

Judgement Text

SHRI ASHOK GOVINDJI CHAUHAN VS. ACIT 20(1) A.Y. 2011 - 12 ITA NO. 2876 /MUM/2016 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, M UMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.MANJUNATHA , AM AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM ITA NO. 2876 /MUM /201 6 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR:20 11 - 12 ) SHRI. ASHOK GOVINDJI CHAUHAN , 301/8, VEENA BEENA APARTMENTS , ACHARYA DHONDE MARG, SEWREE, MUMBAI 400 027. / VS. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX 20(1) , MUMBAI. ./ ./ PAN NO. AABPC7897A ( / APPELLANT) : ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : NONE / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SAURABH DESPANDE , D.R / DATE OF HEARING : 12 . 07 .201 8 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24 . 07 .201 8 / O R D E R PER RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE PRESENT APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) - 32 , MUMBAI, DATED 10.03.2016, WHICH IN ITSELF ARISES FROM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O UNDER SEC. 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT ACT), DATED 13.11.2014 FOR A.Y. 2011 - 12 . THE ASSESSEE ASSAILING THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) HA S RAISED BEFORE US THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL : - THE GROUNDS MENTIONED HERE UNDER ARE WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ONE ANOTHER : SHRI ASHOK GOVINDJI CHAUHAN VS. ACIT 20(1) A.Y. 2011 - 12 ITA NO. 2876 /MUM/2016 2 1. ON THE FACTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES THE CASE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) 32 OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS. 8,50,00,000/ - ON SURRENDER O F TENANCY RIGHT IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 - 12. 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) 32 OUGHT TO HAVE ALLOWED EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961. 3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) 32 FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT THE FLAT IN GOA WAS GIFTED TO HIS DAUGHTER IN ABSOLUTE OWNERSHIP AND POSSESSION HE OUGHT NOT TO HAVE CONSIDERED THE APPELLANT AS DEEMED OWNER BY INVOKING SECTION 27(I) OF THE INCOMET TAX ACT, 1961 WHICH DECIDES DEEMED INCOME UNDER HOUSE PROPERTY. 4. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) 32 OUGHT TO HAVE ACCEPTED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE PRODUCE BEFORE HIM AS IT WAS RELEVANT TO DECIDE DATE OF TRANSFER AS IN CASE O F TENANCY HOLDING OF PROPERTY IN POSSESSION IS THE MOST CRUCIAL EVIDENCE OF TENANCY RIGHT. 5. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) 32 OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL ADDED AD CLAIMED IN WRITTEN SUBMISSION FILED ON 09.03.2016 AND CONSIDERED RENTAL INCOME AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY INSTEAD OF INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 6. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD , TO ALTER OR AMEND ANY ONE OR MORE OF GROUND S AS MENTIONED HEREIN ABOVE, AS AND WHEN NECESSARY . 2. BRIEFLY STATED, THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2011 - 12 ON 15.12.2011, DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 1,03,17,250/ - . SUBSEQUENTLY, THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS REOPENED UNDER SEC. 147 OF THE ACT. 3. THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL LI ES IN A NARROW COMPASS. THE ASSESSEE HAD VIDE AN AGREEMENT DATED 02.03.2010 TRANSFERRED HIS TENANCY RIGHTS IN RESPECT OF A PROPERTY VIZ. 2 & 2A, MEHTA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, MAZGAON FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS. 8,50,00,000/ - TO M/S KALPAVRIKSHA DEVELOPERS . THE POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY WAS SIMULTANEOUSLY DELIVERED BY THE ASSESSEE TO M/S KALPAVRIKSHA DEVELOPERS AT THE TIME OF EXECUTION OF THE AGREEMENT . AS MAJOR AMOUNT OF THE SALE CONSIDERATION WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PERIOD RELEVANT TO A.Y. 2011 - 12, THUS THE CAPITAL GAIN AMOUNTING TO RS. 81,12,378/ - ARISING ON THE TRANSFER OF THE TENANCY RIGHTS WAS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AS HIS INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION VIZ. A.Y. 2011 - 12. STILL FURTHER, AGAINST THE AFORESAID AMOUNT OF CAPITAL GAIN THE ASSE SSEE HAD SHRI ASHOK GOVINDJI CHAUHAN VS. ACIT 20(1) A.Y. 2011 - 12 ITA NO. 2876 /MUM/2016 3 IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME CLAIMED A DEDUCTION UNDER SEC. 54F IN RESPECT OF THE INVESTMENT MADE BY HIM TOWARDS PURCHASE OF A NEW RESIDENTIAL HOUSE AT MUMBAI . 4. OBSERVING, THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD HANDED OVER THE P OSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY ON 02.03 .2010 , IT WAS CONCLUDED BY THE A.O THAT AS PER SEC. 2(47)(V) OF THE ACT, THE TRANSFER OF THE TENANCY RIGHTS HAD OCCASIONED IN THE PERIOD RELEVANT TO A.Y. 2010 - 11. ON THE BASIS OF HIS AFORESAID CONVICTION THE CAPITAL GAIN ARISING FROM THE TRANSFER OF THE TENANCY RIGHTS WAS BROUGHT TO TAX ON SUBSTANTIVE BASIS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE IN A.Y. 2010 - 11, WHILE FOR A PROTECTIVE ASSESSMENT OF THE SAME WAS CARRIED OUT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION VIZ. A.Y. 2011 - 12. S TILL FURTHER , THE A.O OBSERV ING THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS OWNING TWO RESIDENTIAL HOUSES ON THE DATE OF SURRENDER OF TENANCY RIGHTS, THUS WHILE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT FOR A.Y. 2010 - 11 DECLINED HIS CLAIM FOR DED UCTION OF RS. 7,31,99,854/ - UNDER SEC. 54F . ON THE BASIS OF THE SAME REASONING THE A.O REJECTED THE SAID CLAIM OF DEDUCTION WHILE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. IT WAS FURTHER OBSERVED BY THE A.O THAT EVEN OTHERWISE THE CONDITIONS CONTEMPLATED UNDER SEC. 54F(4) WERE ALSO NOT SATISFIED BY THE ASSESSEE . ON THE BASIS OF HIS AFORESAID DELIBERATIONS THE A.O INTER ALIA ASSESSED THE CA PITAL GAIN OF RS. 8,50,00,000/ - ARISING ON TRANSFER OF TENANCY RIGHTS ON PROTECTIVE BASIS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 5. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT AS THE ADDITION OF THE CAPITAL GAIN ON THE TRANSFER OF TENANCY RIGHTS THAT WAS ASSESSED BY THE A.O ON SUBSTANTIVE BASIS IN A.Y. 2010 - 11 , WAS ON APPEAL UPHELD BY HIM , THUS FOR THE SAID REASON VACATED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O ON PROTECTIVE BASIS FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. STILL FURTHER, THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT AS THE ASSESSEE WAS FOUND TO BE THE OWNER OF TWO HOUSES ON THE DATE OF TRANSFER OF THE TENAN CY RIGHTS, HENCE HIS CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SEC. 54F IN RESPECT OF INVESTMENT MADE TOWARDS PURCHASE OF A NEW RESIDENTIAL HOUSE WAS ALSO DECLINED BY THE A.O WHILE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT FOR A.Y. 2010 - 11 . IT WAS NOTICED BY THE SHRI ASHOK GOVINDJI CHAUHAN VS. ACIT 20(1) A.Y. 2011 - 12 ITA NO. 2876 /MUM/2016 4 CIT(A) THAT THE REJECTION OF THE SAID CLAIM OF DEDUCTION OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER SEC. 54F WAS UPHELD BY HIM WHILE DISPOSING OF F HIS APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2010 - 11. IN THE BACKDROP OF THE AFORESAID FACTS THE CIT(A) UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE A.O AND CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS IN ELIGIBLE FOR CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SEC. 54F. 6. THE ASSESSEE BEING AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) HA S CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE US. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT DESPITE HAVING BEEN INTIMATED ABOUT THE DATE OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL HA S NEITHER PUT UP A N APPEARANCE , NOR ANY APPLICATION SEEKING A N ADJOURNMENT HAS BEEN FILED BEFORE US. WE THUS, IN THE BACKDROP OF THE AFORESAID FACTS ARE CONSTRAIN ED TO PROCEED WITH AND DISPOSE OF F THE APPEAL AS PER RULE 24 OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1 963 , AFTER PERUSING THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND HEARING THE RESPONDENT REVENUE. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (FOR SHORT D.R) AT THE VERY OUTSET OF THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL SUBMITTED THAT THE A.O WHILE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT FOR A. Y. 2010 - 11 HAD ASSESSED THE CAPITAL GAIN ARISING ON THE TRANSFER OF THE TENANCY RIGHTS AND ALSO DECLINED THE CL AIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SEC. 54F . THE LD. D.R SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED BY THE A.O ON THE AFORESAID ISSUES WAS UPHELD BY THE CIT(A). IT WAS FURTHER AVERRED BY THE LD. D.R THAT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) FOR A.Y. 2010 - 11 WAS DISMISSED BY THE TRIBUNAL , VIDE ITS ORDER PAS SED IN ASHOK G. CHAUHAN VS. ACIT - 17(3) , MUMBAI [ ITA N O. 1309/MUM/2016 , DATED 14.07.2017 ](COPY PLACED ON RECORD) . 7. WE HAVE PERUSED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL AND FIND THAT THE SUBSTANTIVE ASSESSMENT FRAMED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR A.Y. 2010 - 11 HAD BEEN UPHELD BY THE TRIBUNAL, OBSERVING AS UNDER: 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE COUNSELS FOR BOTH THE PARTIES AND WE H AVE ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD AS WELL AS THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES . BEFORE WE DECIDE THE MERITS OF THE CASE, IT IS NECESSARY TO EVALUATE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A). LD. CIT(A) HAS DISCUSSED THESE GROUNDS AT PARA NO. 5 OF ITS ORDER AND THE OPERATIVE PORTION OF LD. CIT(A) IS CONTAINED IN PARA NO. 5. 1.1 AND THE SAME IS REPRODUCED BELOW : - SHRI ASHOK GOVINDJI CHAUHAN VS. ACIT 20(1) A.Y. 2011 - 12 ITA NO. 2876 /MUM/2016 5 5. 1.1 THIS TENANCY RIGHT IS ADMITTEDLY A CAPITAL ASSET IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT AS HE HIMSELF HAS DISCLOSED CAPITAL GAINS IN A. Y. 2011 - 12 AFTER RECEIPT OF BALANCE CONSIDERATION. THE CO ST OF TENANCY RIGH T IS NIL AND THEREFORE THE ENTIRE SALE CONSIDERATION AS PER THE AGREEMENT IS TO BE ASSESSED AS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT FOR THE PRESENT A.Y. I ACCORDINGLY UPHOLD THE ACTION OF THE A O IN ASSESSING RS.8,50, 00,000 / - AS CAPITAL GAINS IN THE HAN DS OF THE APPELLANT. GROUND NO.1 IS DISMISSED. AFTER ANALYZING THE AFOREMENTIONED ORDER AND AFTER HEARING THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AS WELL AS CONSIDERING THE DOCUMENTS PLACED ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS FILE BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH ARE AT PARA NO. 4 OF LD. CIT(A)'S ORDER AND LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY POINTED OUT THAT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT EVEN THOUGH THE AGREEMENT IN RESPECT OF SURRENDER OF TENANCY RIGHT WAS EXECUTED ON 02.03.2010 BUT THE SALE WAS NOT COMPLETED UNLESS THE POSSESSION H AS BEEN HANDED OVER. IN THIS RESPECT, LD. CIT(A) HAS EXAMINED OF THE CASE AND ALSO RELIED UPON PARA NO. 2 AND 3 OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 02.03.10 WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN CLEARLY MENTIONED THAT AT THE TIME OF ENTERING INTO THE AGREEMENT DATED 02.03.10, THE ASSESSEE SHALL HAVE NO RIGHT, TITLE AND INTEREST OR CLAIM OF WHATSOEVER NATURE IN THE SAID PREMISES. IT WAS RIGHTLY APPRECIATED BY LD. CIT(A) THAT AS PER THE TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT OF SURR ENDER OF TENANCY. IT WAS CLEARLY MENTIONED THAT W.E.F. 0 2.03.10, THE ASSESSEE SHALL HAVE ONLY RIGHT TO RECEIVE THE BALANCE AMOUNT AND SIMULTANEOUSLY THE LANDLORD SHALL BE FULLY ENTITLED TO DEAL WITH THE SAID PROPERTY. AFTER PERUSAL OF THE AGREEMENT, WE ALSO FIND THAT THE FINDING RECORDED BY LD. CIT(A) ARE WELL FOUNDED AND WE ARE ALSO OF THE SAME VIEW THAT SINCE THE DATE OF EXECUTION OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 02.03.10, THE ASSESSEE HAS NO RIGHT OVER THE SAID PROPERTY EXCEPT THE RIGHT OF RECEIPT OF BALANCE AMOUNT AND IN THIS WAY THE TENANCY RIGHT STOOD TRANSFERRED ON 02.03.10. LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO CONSIDERED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2( 4 7 )(I) TO (V) OF I.T. ACT AND THE DECISION OF AAR IN THE CASE OF JASBIR SINGH SARKARIYA (20 07) 164 TAXMANN.COM (108) WHEREIN AAR HELD THAT THERE WAS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LEGAL POSSESSION AND ACTUAL POSSESSION. AS PER THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT CLEARLY BESTOWED RIGHT OF POSSESSION ON THE LANDLORD BY VIRTUE OF AGREEMENT DATED 02.03.10 AND THE AS SESSEE WAS LEFT WITH ONLY THE RIGHT TO RECOVER THE BALANCE CON SIDERATION. THEREFORE, WE ARE ALSO OF THE VIEW THAT THE DATE OF TRANSFER/SURRENDER OF TENANCY RIGHT IN FAVOUR OF LANDLORD IS THE DATE OF AGREEMENT I.E. 02.03.10. THE LD. A.R HEAVILY RELIED UPON CLAUSE 2 OF THE AGREEMENT FOR SURRENDER OF TENANCY RIGHTS, WHEREIN IT IS STATED THAT THE BALANCE CONSIDERATION OF RS.80.00 LAKHS SHALL BE PAID TO THE ASSESSEE UPON HANDING OVER VACANT AND PEACEFUL POSSESSION. RELYING UPON THIS CLAUSE, THE LD. A.R CONTENDED THAT THE POSSESSION WAS NOT HANDED OVER BY THE ASSESSEE . HOWEVER, WE NOTICED THAT THE CLAUSE 3 OF THE AGREEMENT CLEARLY STATES THAT THE ASSESSEE, BEING A TENANT, HAS HANDED OVER QUITE, VACANT AND PEACEFUL POSSESSION OF THE PREMISES TO THE LANDLORD, MEANING THEREBY, THE CONDITION MENTIONED FOR THE PAYMENT OF BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.80.00 LAKHS RELATES TO HANDING OVER OF POSSESSION BY LANDLORD TO THE DEVELOPER. N O NEW FACTS OR CONTRARY JUDGMENTS HAVE BE EN BROUGHT ON RECORD BEFORE US IN ORDER TO CONTROVERT OR REBUT THE FINDINGS RECORDED BY THE LD. CIT(A). MOREOVER, THERE ARE NO REASONS FOR US TO DEVIATE FROM THE FINDINGS SO SHRI ASHOK GOVINDJI CHAUHAN VS. ACIT 20(1) A.Y. 2011 - 12 ITA NO. 2876 /MUM/2016 6 RECORDED BY THE LD . CIT (A). THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE FINDINGS RECORDED BY THE LD. CIT (A) ARE JUDICIOUS AND ARE WELL REASONED. ACCORDINGLY, WE UPHOLD THE SAME. RESULTANTLY, THIS GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED. WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW T HAT AS THE CAPITAL GAIN ARISING ON THE TRANSFER OF THE TENANCY RIGHTS HA D BEEN HELD BY THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL TO HAVE RIGHTLY BEEN ASSESSED BY THE A.O IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE IN A.Y. 2010 - 11, THEREFORE, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US THAT THE CIT(A) HAD ERRED IN NOT BRINGING THE SAME TO TAX IN A.Y. 2011 - 12, THUS DOES NOT SURVIVE. WE THUS, FOLLOWING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL WHILE DISPOSING OF F THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR A.Y. 201 0 - 11 DISMISS THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 1 . 8 . WE FURTHER FIND THAT THE TRIBUNAL WHILE DISPOSING OF F THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR A.Y. 2010 - 11 HA D OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENTITLED FOR CL AIM OF EXEMPTION UNDER SEC. 54F, OBSERVING AS UNDER: - 7. THESE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE INTER CONNECTED AND INTER RELATED AND RELATES TO CHALLENGING THE ACTION OF LD. CIT(A) IN DISALLOWING THE EXEMPTION U/S 54 F OF THE I.T. TO THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE WE THOUGHT IT FT TO DISPOSE OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER . 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE COUNSELS FOR BOTH THE PARTIES AND HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD AS WELL AS THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. BEFORE WE DECIDE THE MERITS OF THE CASE, IT IS NECESSARY TO EVALUATE THE ORDERS PASSED BY LD. CIT(A) AT PARA NO 5. 2 OF ITS ORDER. THE OPERATIVE PARA OF CIT (A) IS REPRODUCED BELOW: - 5.2 THI S IS AGAINST THE ACTION OF THE A . O IN DENYING DEDUCTION U/S. 54F WHICH WAS CLAIMED BY THE APP ELLANT IN CONSEQUENCE TO THE A.O ASSESSING CAPITAL GAINS OF RS . 8,50,00,000 / - . THE A.O NOTED THAT THE APPELLANT WAS THE OWNER OF TWO HOUSES AS ON DATE OF INVESTMENT IN NEW RESIDENT IAL PREMISES AND THEREFORE THE AO DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.54F. THE A.O FOUND THAT THE APPELLANT OWNS ONE RESIDENT/AL HOUSE EACH IN HOLY PARK CHS LT D. GOA PURCHASED IN DECEMBER 2003 AND THE OTHER AT PANCH TANTARA - 1, VERSOVA, ANDHERI (W) PURCHASED IN JULY, 1998. BEFORE ME, THE APPELLANT STATED THAT HE OWNS THE HOUSE AT VERSOVA, ANDHERI (W). H OWEVER, IN RESPECT OF GOA HOUSE THE APPELLANT SU BMITTED THAT VIDE A GIFT DEED DTD . 15.4.2004, HE HAS GIFTED THE GOA FLAT TO HIS DAUGHTER MS. ALISHA ASHOK CH AUHAN. THE APPELLANT TILED A COPY OF THE SAID GIFT D EED BEFORE ME. FROM AN EXAMINATI ON OF THE SAME, IT IS SEEN THAT HIS DAUGHTER IS A MINOR AND GIFT HAS BEEN ACCEPTED ON HER BEHALF BY HER MOTHER AND THE WIFE OF THE APPELLANT. IN THIS CONNECTION IT IS USEFUL TO REFER TO SEC. 27 WHICH DEFINES OWNER OF HOUSE PROPERTY. I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THE APPELLANT IS SQUARELY HIT BY THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 27(I). THIS CLAUSE STATES THAT AN INDIVIDUAL WHO TRANSFERS ANY HOUSE PROPERTY TO A SHRI ASHOK GOVINDJI CHAUHAN VS. ACIT 20(1) A.Y. 2011 - 12 ITA NO. 2876 /MUM/2016 7 MINOR CHILD, NOT BEING A MARRIED DAUGHTER, SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE THE OWNER OF THE HOUSE PROPERTY SO TRANSFERRED ADMITTEDLY, THE DAUG HTER OF THE APPELLANT IS A MINOR AND THEREFORE, TH E TRANSFEROR IN THIS CASE BEING THE APPELLANT IS DEEMED OWNER OF THE GOA FLAT. IN SUCH A SITUATION, THE DEDUCTION U/S. 54F IS NOT AVAILABLE TO THE APPELLANT. THERE IS ANOTHER REASON WHY THE DEDUCTION U/ S. 54F IS TO BE DENIED FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS WELL AS THE GIFT DEED IN 2004, IT IS SEEN THAT THE ADDRESS OF THE APPELLANT IS MENTIONED AS RESIDING AT 30118, VEENA BEENA A PARTMENT, A. D. ROAD, SEWN, MUM HAI. PRIME FAC IE IT WOULD APPEAR THAT THE APPELLANT OWNS ONE MORE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES, HOWEVER, THE FACTS REGARDING THIS ARE NOT CLEAR. BE THAT AS IT MAY, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THE APPELLANT IS DEEMED OWNER OF THE GOA FLAT AS DISCUSSED ABOVE AND THEREFORE, NOT ELIGIBLE TO A CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.54F. IN THE LIGHT OF THIS, THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FU RNISHED BY THE APPELLANT IS OF NO HELP TO HIM. GROUND NO.2 IS DISMISSED. AFTER ANALYZING THE AFOREMENTIONED ORDER AND AFTER HEARING ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND AS PER THE FACTS OF THE CASE, ADMITTEDLY THE DAUGHTER OF THE ASSESSEE IS A MINOR TO WHOM THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN GIFTED VIDE GIFT DE ED DATED 15.04.2004. AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 27(1) OF I.T. ACT, IF AN INDIVIDUAL WHO TRANSFERS ANY HOUSE PROPERTY TO A MINOR CHILD, NOT BEING A MINOR DAUGHTER, SHALL BE DEEMED TO B E THE OWNER OF THE HOUSE PROPERTY SO TRANSFERRED. ADMITTEDLY, IN THIS CASE, THE DAUGHTER OF THE ASSESSEE IS A M INOR AND THEREFORE, THE TRANSFER O R IN THIS CASE, B EING THE ASSESSEE IS DEEMED OWNER OF THE GOA FLAT. THEREFORE, IN S UCH A SITUATION, THE DEDUCTION U/S 54F IS NOT AVAILABLE TO THE A SSESSEE. LD. CIT(A) HAS PASSED WELL REASONED ORDER. THEREFORE, N O NEW FACTS OR CONTRARY JUDGMENTS HAVE BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD BEFORE US IN ORDER TO CONTROVERT OR REBUT THE FINDINGS RECORDED BY THE LD. CIT(A). MOREOVER, THERE ARE NO REASONS FOR US TO DEVIATE FROM THE FINDINGS SO RECORDED BY THE LD. CIT(A). HENCE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE FINDINGS RECORDED BY THE LD. CIT(A) ARE JUDICIOUS AND ARE WELL REASONED. ACCORDINGLY, WE UPHOLD THE SAME, RESULTANTLY, THIS GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED. ON A PERUSAL OF THE FACTS IN CONTEXT O F THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION, IT EMERGES THAT THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AD OPTING THE SIMILAR REASONING ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE SAID CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SEC. 5 4F WAS DECLINED IN A.Y. 2010 - 11 , HAD REJECTED SUCH CLAIM OF DEDUCTION OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. WE THU S, FINDING NO REASON TO TAKE A DIFFEREN T VIEW, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOW THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR A.Y. 2010 - 11 AND UPHOLD THE REJECTION OF THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER SEC. 54F OF THE ACT. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO. 2 TO 5 ARE DISMISSED. SHRI ASHOK GOVINDJI CHAUHAN VS. ACIT 20(1) A.Y. 2011 - 12 ITA NO. 2876 /MUM/2016 8 9 . THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 6 BEING GENERAL IN NATURE IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 10 . THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED IN TERMS OF OUR AFORESAID OBSERVATIONS. ORDER PRO NOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24 . 07 .201 8 SD/ - SD/ - (G. MANJUNATHA ) (RAVISH SOOD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI ; 24 . 07 .201 8 . . ./ PS. ROHIT KUMAR / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - 4. / CIT 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD FILE . //TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI