LATE VEENA RANI NIGAM,GHAZIABAD V. ITO WARD 2(2)(5) GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

ITA 4276/DEL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the late Veena Rani Nigam against the Income-tax Officer, Ward 2(2)(5), Ghaziabad, concerning the disallowance of a section 54F deduction claim of Rs. 96,09,809 for the assessment year 2017-18. The primary issue was whether the assessee, who claimed deductions for investments in electric meter installation, car parking, and registration charges, was eligible for the section 54F deduction given her ownership status of two residential properties. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had disallowed the deduction on the basis that the assessee 'owns' two residential properties, contrary to her claim of co-ownership. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to re-examine the ownership status based on additional evidence provided by the assessee.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 30494 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-01-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Other Referred Cases: ITO v. Rasiklal N. Satra [2006] 280 ITR 243 (Mum.)
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Matter Remanded
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Additional evidence
• Section: 143(3); 54F

Judgement Text

"1 ITA no. 4276/Del/2024 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 4276/Del/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Late Veena Rani Nigam, Flat no. 1205, Dhaulagiri Apartment, Kaushambi, Ghaziabad-201010. PAN: ABAPN 1715 A Vs Income-tax Officer, Ward 2(2)(5), Ghaziabad. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by Shri K.V.S. Gupta, Adv. & Shri Pankaj Khanna, CA Department represented by Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR Date of hearing 28.01.2024 Date of pronouncement 28.01.2024 O R D E R PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM: This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2017-18 arises against Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Addl/JCIT(A)-3 Bengaluru’s DIN and order no. ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1066852442(1), dated 19.07.2024, in case no. 2 ITA no. 4276/Del/2024 CIT(A), Ghaziabad/12040/2019-20, in proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’. Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. It emerges during the course of hearing that the assessee’s sole substantive grievance raised in the instant appeal challenges the learned lower appellate authority’s action exercising enhancement jurisdiction for disallowing her section 54F deduction claim of Rs. 96,09,809/-, as against Rs. 10,59,317/- made by the Assessing Officer, in his assessment order dated 21.12.2019. This latter amount of Rs. 10.59 lakhs admittedly represented the assessee’s payments for electric meter installation, car parking and registration charges. The learned CIT(A)/NFAC on the other hand has held her as not entitled for the impugned deduction on the ground that she “owns” two residential properties. 3. Learned counsel in the light of these facts refers to the assessee’s additional evidence that she in fact “co-owns” the twin residential properties which could not be treated as her exclusive ownership in light of ITO v. Rasiklal N. Satra [2006] 280 ITR 243 (Mum.). 3 ITA no. 4276/Del/2024 4. The Revenue’s case on the other hand is that impugned lower appellate discussion has duly taken note of the assessee’s earlier returns in disclosing her as the sole owner of the twin residential properties. 5. Faced with this situation learned counsel has taken recourse to filing of the assessee’s additional evidence under Rule 29 of the Appellate Tribunal’s Rules that the assessee has been wrongly treated as the sole owner than a co-owner in the above twin residential properties. 6. Be that as it may, the tribunal is of the considered view that going by the above said judicial precedent, the assessee has to be held as having exclusively owned the twin residential properties and, therefore, her instant appeal is remitted to the learned Assessing Officer with a direction to examine and verify her additional evidence filed herein. It is hereby made clear that in case the learned Assessing Authority finds the assessee having exclusive ownership of the said twin residential properties at the relevant point of time, her impugned section 54F deduction would be deemed to have been declined. Ordered accordingly. 7. So far as the impugned disallowance of section 54F deduction amounting to Rs. 10.59 lakhs in concerned, there could be hardly any dispute that the same represents electric meter installation, car parking and registration charges; which is nothing but investment in acquisition of the house property only. It is thus made 4 ITA no. 4276/Del/2024 clear that in case the assessee is not found as the exclusive owner of the above twin residential properties, the same shall stand allowed. 8. This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open court on 28.01.2025. Sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER *MP* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI "