ITO, CHENNAI V. M.Mani, CHENNAI

ITA 3457/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7667 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-02-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 23-12-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DURAI PANDIAN SR
• Section: 54F

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH : CHENNAI . . . , !' . #$#% , & '' ( [BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ] ./I.T.A. NO. 3457/MDS/2016 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-2013. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORPORATE WARD 7(4) CHENNAI 600 034. VS. SHRI. M. MANI, NO.1, THIRUMANI AMMAN NAGAR, 2 ND AVENUE, THIRUMANGALAM, ANNA NAGAR WEST, CHENNAI 600 040. [PAN BDIPM 2405F] ( )* / APPELLANT) ( +,)* /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI. DURAI PANDIAN, SR.A.R /RESPONDENT BY : NONE /DATE OF HEARING : 14-02-2017 ! /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28-02-2017 / O R D E R PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IN THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE, ITS GRIEVANC E IS THAT LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ALLOWED RELIE F U/S.54F OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) TO THE ASSESSEE DESPITE ONE OF THE PROPERTIES WHICH WERE SOLD, ON WHICH SUCH RELIEF WAS CLAIMED, BEING HELD IN THE NAME OF HIS SPOUSE. ITA NO. 3457/MDS/2016 :- 2 -: 2. FACTS APROPOS ARE THAT ASSESSEE HAD FILED RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT INCOME DECLARING INCOME OF A6,68,660/-. ASSESSEE ALONGWITH HAD SOLD A VACANT LAND AT PLOT NO.23 AND HIS WIFE ONE AT PLOT NO. 24, VENUS NAGAR, KOLATHUR, CHENNAI FOR A TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF A1,40,00,000/-. ASSESSEE PURCHAS ED FOUR SEPARATE DWELLING UNITS OF AN APARTMENT COMPLEX AND AS PER ASSESSEE TOTAL INVESTMENT ON THESE FOUR FLATS CAME TO A1,14,63,531 /-. ASSESSEE CLAIMED EXEMPTION U/S.54F OF THE ACT ON THE ABOVE I NVESTMENTS. HOWEVER, LD. ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE OPINION T HAT ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED FOUR DIFFERENT DWELLING UNITS THROUGH FOU R DIFFERENT DOCUMENTS AND HENCE EXEMPTION CLAIMED U/S.54F OF T HE ACT COULD NOT BE ALLOWED. HE DISALLOWED THE CLAIM AND COMPLETED ASSESSMENT. 3. ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE, IN HIS APPEAL BEFORE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) WAS THAT RES IDENTIAL HOUSE COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED IN SINGULAR. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF V .R. KARPAGAM VS. ITO (2013) 143 ITD 126. LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) WAS OF THE OPINION THAT BY VIRTUE OF THE DECISION OF TH E CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF V.R. KARPAGAM (SUPRA ) DEDUCTION U/S.54F OF THE ACT COULD NOT BE DENIED EVEN WERE MULTIPLE FLATS WERE A CQUIRED BY AN ASSESSEE. ITA NO. 3457/MDS/2016 :- 3 -: 4. NOW BEFORE US, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE STRONGLY ASSAILING THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME TAX (APPEALS) SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS SOLD TWO PROPERTIES, A ND ONLY ONE WAS IN HIS NAME WHEREAS THE OTHER WAS IN HIS WIFES NAME. ACCORDING TO HIM, EXEMPTION U/S.54F OF THE ACT COULD NOT BE GIVEN ON THE CAPITAL GAINS ARISING ON THE PROPERTY WHICH WAS SOLD BY HIS WIF ES NAME. ACCORDING TO LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE THIS ASPECT WAS NEVER LOOKED INTO BY LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) OR THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER. 5. NOBODY APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF LD. DEPARTMEN TAL REPRESENTATIVE AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHO RITIES BELOW. IT MIGHT BE TRUE THAT OUT OF THE TWO PLOTS SOLD, ONE W AS HELD BY ASSESSEES WIFE SMT. POONIAMMAL. HOWEVER, LD. ASSE SSING OFFICER HAD DENIED EXEMPTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S.54F OF THE ACT NOT FOR THIS REASON BUT FOR A REASON THAT ASSESSEE HAD ACQU IRED FOUR DWELLING UNITS ON WHICH SUCH EXEMPTION WAS CLAIMED AND SEC. 54F OF THE ACT COULD BE APPLIED ONLY FOR ONE DWELLING UNIT. THUS THERE WAS NO CASE FOR THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER THAT ONE OF THE PLOT SOLD BY ASSESSEES WIFE ON WHICH CAPITAL GAINS WAS COMPUTED WAS IN T HE NAME OF ASSESSEES WIFE. ON THE OTHER HAND, HE HAD CONSIDE RED BOTH PROPERTIES AS SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE AND COMPUTED THE CAPITAL G AINS. ITA NO. 3457/MDS/2016 :- 4 -: 7. COMING TO THE QUESTION, WHETHER EXEMPTION U/S.54F O F THE ACT COULD BE AVAILED EVEN WHERE SUCH CLAIM WAS FOR MORE THAN ONE FLAT, WE FIND THAT DECISION OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENC H IN THE CASE OF V.R. KARPAGAM (SUPRA ), RELIED ON BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) STANDS CONFIRMED BY THE JURISDICTIONAL HI GH COURT IN 373 ITR 127. WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THEREFORE LD. COMMI SSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) WAS JUSTIFIED IN GIVING RELIEF U/S.54 F OF THE ACT ON THE FOUR FLATS ACQUIRED BY THE ASSESSEE. WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE STANDS DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRU ARY, 2017, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . . . ' ) (N.R.S. GANESAN) / JUDICIAL MEMBER ( !' . #$#% ) (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) & / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER #$ / CHENNAI %& / DATED: 28TH FEBRUARY, 2017 KV &' ()*) / COPY TO: 1 . / APPELLANT 3. +,' / CIT(A) 5. )-. / / DR 2. / RESPONDENT 4. + / CIT 6. .01 / GF