Smt. Late Kamal Kanta Uppal, New Delhi V. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 4632/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 81695 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 10 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-09-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 10-09-2014
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 21-10-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR B R R KUMAR
• Section: 54

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : D : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, AM AND SHRI A.T. VARKEY, JM ITA NO.4632/DEL/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 LATE KAMAL KANTA UPPAL, LEGAL HEIR SHRI CHANDRA KUMAR UPPAL, E-97, GREATER KAILASH-III, NEW DELHI. PAN : AAAPU8836A VS. A CIT, CIRCLE-23(1), NEW DELHI. ( APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI ANIL BHALLA, CA DEPARTMENT BY : DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, SR. DR ORDER PER R.S. SYAL, AM: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT (A) ON 30.08.2010 IN RELATION TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. 2. THE ONLY ISSUE RAISED IN THIS APPEAL IS AGAINST THE DENIAL OF EXEMPTION U/S 54 TO THE EXTENT OF 50% OF THE AMOUNT INVESTED IN ITA NO.4632/DEL/2010 2 THE GURGAON PROPERTY PURCHASED IN THE JOINT NAME OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS HER SON. 3. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT T HE ASSESSEE SOLD A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE PROPERTY SITUATED AT NEW F RIENDS COLONY, NEW DELHI FOR A CONSIDERATION OF ` 2.25 CRORE ON WH ICH LONG-TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF ` 2.16 CRORE WAS SHOWN. THE ASSESS EE PURCHASED TWO PROPERTIES ONE AT GURGAON AND THE OTHER AT MA SJID MOTH, NEW DELHI AND CLAIMED THE BENEFIT U/S 54 FOR A SUM OF ` 1.34 CRORE ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT IN THESE TWO PROPERTIES. THE ASSESSEE ALSO CLAIMED RELIEF U/S 54EC TOWARDS INVESTMENT OF ` 50 LAC MADE IN REC BONDS. THE AO HELD THAT EXEMPTION U/S 54 WOU LD BE ALLOWED ONLY IN RESPECT OF ONE HOUSE PROPERTY. THA T IS HOW, THE PROPERTY PURCHASED AT GURGAON WAS CHOSEN FOR ALLOWI NG EXEMPTION U/S 54. WE WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR HERE TH AT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT AGGRIEVED AGAINST NOT ALLOWING EXEM PTION U/S 54 IN RESPECT OF INVESTMENT IN THE OTHER PROPERTY AT M ASJID MOTH, NEW DELHI. THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE NEW PROPERTY AT GURGAON WAS REGISTERED IN JOINT NAMES OF THE ASSESSEE AND H ER SON SHRI CHANDAN KUMAR UPPAL. IT WAS OPINED THAT THE EXEMPTI ON U/S 54 WOULD BE ADMISSIBLE ONLY FOR HALF OF THE AMOUNT INV ESTED IN THE ITA NO.4632/DEL/2010 3 PROPERTY BECAUSE OF THE INSERTION OF THE NAME OF HE R SON AS JOINT PURCHASER. THAT IS HOW EXEMPTION U/S 54 WAS REDUCE D TO ` 50,84,100/-, WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE HAD INVESTED A SU M OF ` 101,68,200/- IN THIS PROPERTY. THE LD. CIT(A) UPHE LD THE ACTION OF THE AO IN THIS REGARD. THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED O N THIS ISSUE. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ONLY ISSUE PRESSED BEFORE US IS AGAINST THE DENIAL OF EXEMPTION U/S 54 BY 50% ON AC COUNT OF THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEES SON ALSO MADE AS A JOINT PUR CHASER. THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. SHRI KAMAL WAHAL [(2013) 351 ITR 4 (DEL)] AND CIT VS. RAVINDER KUMAR ARORA [(2012) 343 ITR 38 (DEL)] HAS HELD THAT WHEN ASSESSEE MAKES PAYMENT FOR PURC HASE OF NEW HOUSE, BUT, GETS THE SAME REGISTERED IN JOIN T NAME, EXEMPTION U/S 54 IS AVAILABLE ON THE ENTIRE AMOUNT INVESTED. NO CONTRARY JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIG H COURT HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE BY THE LD. DR. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE CITED JUDGEMENTS, IT IS CLEAR THAT IF THE ASSESSEE INVESTS IN NEW HOUSE PROPERTY FROM HIS OWN, BUT, SUCH PROPERTY IS PURCHASED IN JOINT NAMES ALONG WITH SOMEONE ELSE, THE EXEMPTION CANNOT BE PROPORTIONATELY DENIED TO THE EXTENT OF THE INCLUSI ON OF THE NAME ITA NO.4632/DEL/2010 4 OF SUCH OTHER PERSON. ADVERTING TO THE FACTS OF TH E INSTANT CASE, IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO HAVE MADE INVE STMENT IN GURGAON PROPERTY OUT OF THE SALE CONSIDERATION RECE IVED ON THE TRANSFER OF HOUSE PROPERTY AT NEW FRIENDS COLONY, N EW DELHI. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE AO THAT SHRI CHANDAN KUMAR UPPA L ALSO MADE CONTRIBUTION IN THE PURCHASE OF GURGAON PROPERTY. I T, THEREFORE, EMERGES THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE INVESTMENT OF ` 1.01 CRORE IN GURGAON PROPERTY FROM THE SALE PROCEEDS REALIZED FR OM THE TRANSFER OF NEW FRIENDS COLONY PROPERTY. GOING BY THE RATIO DECIDENDI LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE AFORE-NOTED TWO JUDGMENTS, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S 54 CANNOT BE RESTRICTED TO HALF OF THE AMOUNT INVESTED IN GURGAON PROPERTY. THE ASSESSEE D ESERVES AND IS HEREBY ALLOWED EXEMPTION FOR THE FULL AMOUNT INV ESTED IN GURGAON PROPERTY. THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS, THEREFORE , OVERTURNED TO THIS EXTENT. ITA NO.4632/DEL/2010 5 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 11.09.201 4. /- SD/- SD/- [ A.T. VARKEY ] [ R.S. SYAL ] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED, 11 TH SEPTEMBER, 2014. DK COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT AR, ITAT, NEW DELHI.