ITO, CHENNAI V. Preethi Jeyakumar, CHENNAI

ITA 3211/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7415 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-03-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 22-02-2017
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 23-11-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R. DURAI PANDIAN
• Section: 32; 147; 131; 68; 246; 69; 145; 27; 148; 54; 37; 6; 56; 263; 63; 132; 12; 28; 144; 10; 90; 154; 2; 11; 15; 271(1)(b); 139; 92; 54F; 13

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , .. ' #$, & '( BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.3211/MDS/2016 & C.O. NO.7/MDS/2017 (IN I.T.A. NO.3211/MDS/2016) * +* / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORPORATE WARD 17(3), CHENNAI - 600 006. V. SMT. PREETHI JEYAKUMAR, 8/18, KAVIMANI SALAI, MOGAPPAIR WEST. CHENNAI - 600 037. PAN : AMLPP 0588 R ( APPELLANT) ( RESPONDENT & CROSS-OBJECTOR) -. / 0 / APPELLANT BY : SHRI R. DURAI PANDIAN, JCIT 12-. / 0 / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI T.N. SEETHARAMAN, ADVOCAT E ' / 3& / DATE OF HEARING : 22.02.2017 45+ / 3& / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23.03.2017 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) -5, CHENNA I, DATED 15.09.2016 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE CROSS-OBJECTION AGAINST THE VERY SAME ORDER. 2 I.T.A. NO.3211/MDS/16 C.O. NO.7/MDS/2017 THEREFORE, WE HEARD BOTH THE APPEAL AND THE CROSS-O BJECTION TOGETHER AND DISPOSING OF THE SAME BY THIS COMMON O RDER. 2. THE ONLY ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IN THE R EVENUES APPEAL IS DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER S ECTION 54F OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT'). 3. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH, SHRI R. DURAI PANDIAN, THE L D. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AND SHRI T.N. SEETHARAM AN, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE ACT ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MULTI RESIDENTIAL UNITS, THER EFORE, NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE ACT. HOWEVE R, THE CIT(APPEALS) PLACING RELIANCE ON THE JUDGMENT OF MA DRAS HIGH COURT IN CIT V. SMT. V.R. KARPAGAM (2014) 272 CTR 1 84, FOUND THAT THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE WOULD INCLUDE MULTIPLE F LATS/RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND AMENDMENT MADE TO SECTION 54F OF THE ACT WOULD BE PROSPECTIVE OPERATION, THEREFORE, IT IS NOT APPLICA BLE TO THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS. IN VIEW OF THIS JUDGMENT OF MADR AS HIGH COURT, THIS TRIBUNAL DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE W ITH THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITY AND ACCORDINGLY THE SAME IS CONFIRM ED. 3 I.T.A. NO.3211/MDS/16 C.O. NO.7/MDS/2017 4. SINCE THIS TRIBUNAL CONFIRMS THE ORDER OF THE CI T(APPEALS) WITH REGARD TO EXEMPTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE UN DER SECTION 54F OF THE ACT, THE CROSS-OBJECTION FILED BY THE AS SESSEE BECOMES INFRUCTUOUS AND ACADEMIC IN NATURE. ACCORDINGLY, T HE CROSS- OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED. 5. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AN D THE CROSS- OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 23 RD MARCH, 2017 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . . ' #$ ) ( . . . ) (D.S. SUNDER SINGH) (N.R.S. GANESAN) & / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 7 /DATED, THE 23 RD MARCH, 2017. KRI. / 13#8 98+3 /COPY TO: 1. -. /APPELLANT 2. 12-. /RESPONDENT 3. ' :3 () /CIT(A)-5, CHENNAI-34 4. PRINCIPAL CIT-9, CHENNAI 5. 8; 13 /DR 6. * < /GF.