S Vasantha, Chennai V. ITO, Non Corporate Ward -6(4), Chennai

ITA 73/CHNY/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1963 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-12-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 05-01-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S R ANITA
• Assessee Lawyers: S SRIDHAR
• Keywords: Benefit of exemption
• Section: 54F; 73; 12; 2

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH: CHENNAI , . , BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I .T.A. NO. 73 /CHNY/20 18 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 20 1 1 - 20 1 2 SMT. S. VASANTHA, NO.26/2, VIVEKANANDA STREET, ANNAI AJUGAM NAGAR, PERAVALLUR, CHENNAI 600 082. . [PAN: A QPPV 9156K ] VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON - CORPORATE WARD 6(4), CHENNAI 600 0 34. ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : MR. S. SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE /RESPONDENT BY : M R S . R. ANITA, J CIT / DATE OF HEARING : 17 . 1 1 .2020 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 02. 12 .2020 / O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER : TH IS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 5 , CHENNAI IN I.T.A. NO.4 8 / CIT(A) - 5/16 - 17 , DATED 01.06.201 7 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 1 1 - 20 1 2 . I . T . A NO . 73 /CHNY/20 18 : - 2 - : 2. THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF IS THAT THE ASSESSEE , SMT. S. VASANTHA INHERITED A VACANT LAND OF 1.06 ACRES COMPRISING OF SURVEY NO.70/2 OF PERIAKUPPAM VILLAGE, TIRUVALLUR, CHENGALPET DISTRICT AFTER THE DEATH OF HER HUSBAND , LATE SHRI. SRINIVASAN ALONG WITH OTHER CO - OWNERS OF LATE SHRI. SINGARAVELU WHO INITIALLY PURCHASED THE PROPERTY ALONG WITH HER HUSBAND. THE SAME WAS SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE AND HER TWO SONS ALONG WITH THE LEGAL HEIRS OF LATE SHRI. SINGA RAVELU BY WAY OF SALE DEED DOC. NO.807/2010 DATED 24.05.2010. THE ASSESSEE HAS SHARED THE SALE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED BY HER ALONG WITH MR. RAM KUMAR WHO IS THE SON OF THE ASSESSEE TO CONSTRUCT A HOUSE. MR. RAM KUMAR HAD CONSTRUCTED A HOUSE BY TAKING A L OAN AND ALSO WITH THE SALE CONSIDERATION SHARE THAT WAS GIVEN BY HIS MOTHER AND RECEIVED BY HIM AND THUS THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED EXEMPTION U/S.54F OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 3. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DENIED ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT C ONSTRUCTED A HOUSE AND WAS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE EXEMPTION FOR SECTION 54F OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. I . T . A NO . 73 /CHNY/20 18 : - 3 - : 4. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS CONFIRMED THE SAME. 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES, PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 6. THE ASSESSEES LATE HUSBAND ALONG WITH LATE SHRI. SINGARAVELU HAD PURCHASED THE VACANT LAND COMPRISING OF 1.06 ACRES. AFTER THE DEMISE OF THE ASSESSEES HUSBAND AND ALSO THE CO - OWNER, BOTH THE LEGA L HEIRS HA S SOLD THE PROPERTY. SO FAR AS THE ASSESSEE IS CONCERNED, SHE RECEIVED THE SALE CONSIDERATION ALONG WITH HER TWO SONS AND THAT ONE OF HER SON PROPOSED TO CONSTRUCT A HOUSE . T HE ASSESSEE BEING AN OLD - AGED WOMEN HAS SHARED THE SALE CONSIDERATION T O HER SON FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTIN G A NEW HOUSE AND THUS CLAIMED EXEMPTION U/S.54F OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 7. IT IS A FACT THAT THE ASSESSEES SON CONSTRUCTED A HOUSE WITH THE SALE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THAT SHARED WITH HER SON. UNDER THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, EXEMPTION U/S.54F OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 BEING A BENEFICIAL PROVISION AND ALSO TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE STATUS OF THE OLD - AGED WOMEN I . T . A NO . 73 /CHNY/20 18 : - 4 - : WHO IS WITHOUT HER HUSBAND WHO HA S SHARED THE MONEY RECEIVED BY HER T O HER SON FOR CONSTRUCTING OF A NEW HOUSE , IN OUR OPINION, THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR THE BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION U/S.54F OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) STANDS CANCELLED AND THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 8 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN I.T.A.NO. 73 /CHNY/201 8 IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 2 ND DECEMBER , 2020 IN CHENNAI. SD/ - ( . ) ( S. JAYARAMAN ) /ACCOUNTANT MEM BER SD/ - ( ) ( V. DURGA RAO ) /JUDICIAL MEMBER / CHENNAI, / DATED: 2 ND DECEMBER , 2020 IA , SR. P.S /COPY TO: 1. /APPELLANT 2. /RESPONDENT 3. () /CIT (A) 4. /CIT 5. /DR 6. /GF