ITO, CHENNAI V. Smt. Radha Jayaraman, CHENNAI

MA 305/CHNY/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5751 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 22-02-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 27-09-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S NATARAJA
• Assessee Lawyers: A S SRIRAMAN
• Section: 54F

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, CHENNAI ... , . !'# ! , $ !% BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER && / M.P. NO.305/CHNY/2017 (IN I.T.A. NO.3128/MDS/2016) ' (' / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORPORATE WARD - 2(3), CHENNAI. V. SMT. RADHA JAYARAMAN, NEW NO.17, 5 TH MAIN ROAD, RAJA ANNAMALAIPURAM, CHENNAI - 600 028. PAN : AADPJ 9948 D (*+' /PETITIONER) (*,+-/ RESPONDENT) *+' / 0 /PETITIONER BY : SHRI S. NATARAJA, JCIT *,+- / 0 / RESPONDENT BY : SH. A.S. SRIRAMAN, ADVOCATE 1 / 2$ / DATE OF HEARING : 16.02.2018 3'( / 2$ / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22.02.2018 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE REVENUE HAS FILED THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS P ETITION ON THE GROUND THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION CLAIM ED UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT ' THE ACT') WAS NOT ADJUDICATED BY THIS TRIBUNAL. 2 M.P. NO.305/CHNY/17 2. SHRI S. NATARAJA, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENT ATIVE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE INVESTED IN TWO INDEPEN DENT RESIDENTIAL UNITS WHICH ARE SEPARATE FROM EACH OTHER. THEREFOR E, ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE CONDITIONS STIPULATED IN SECTION 54F(2) OF THE ACT ARE NOT FULFILLED, HENCE, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGI BLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE ACT. 3. ON THE CONTRARY, SH. A.S. SRIRAMAN, THE LD.COUNS EL FOR THE ASSESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT THIS TRIBUNAL EXAMINED THE CLAIM OF THE REVENUE MADE UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE ACT. AFTER R EFERRING TO THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE, IT WAS FOUND THAT WHAT CAN B E SOLD IS ONLY EXISTING PROPERTY AND NOT THE PROPERTY WHICH WOULD COME INTO EXISTENCE IN FUTURE. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE L D. COUNSEL, IT IS NOT CORRECT TO SAY THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE ACT WAS NOT DISPOSED OF. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED A SPECIFIC GROUND WITH REGARD TO CLAIM O F THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE ACT AT GROUND NOS.3.1 AND 3.2 IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. THIS GROUND WAS NOT DISPOSED OF BY THIS TRIBUNAL. THIS TRIBUNAL DISPOSED THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE WITH REGARD TO COST OF THE PROPERTY ON THE BASIS OF THE JUDGMENT OF 3 M.P. NO.305/CHNY/17 BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN DCIT V. MANJULA J. SHAH (2013) 355 ITR 474. THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE ACT WAS NOT DISPOSED OF. THEREFORE, THERE IS AN ERROR IN T HE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL DATED 23.03.2017. THE GROUND, WHICH WAS N OT DISPOSED, NEEDS TO BE DISPOSED OF. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL O F THE REVENUE IN I.T.A. NO.3128/MDS/2016 IS REOPENED FOR DISPOSAL OF THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, THE REGISTRY IS DIRECTED TO POST THE APPEAL FOR DIS POSING OF THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN GROUND NOS.3.1 AND 3.2, ON 18.04.2018. NO SEPARATE NOTICE FOR HEARING BE ISSU ED SINCE THIS ORDER SHALL BE TREATED AS NOTICE FOR HEARING. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION FILED BY THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED COURT ON 22 ND FEBRUARY, 2018 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (. !'# ! ) ( ... ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) (N.R.S. GANESAN) $ / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 5 /DATED, THE 22 ND FEBRUARY, 2018. KRI. 4 M.P. NO.305/CHNY/17 / *26& 7&(2 /COPY TO: 1. *+' / PETITIONER 2. *,+- /RESPONDENT 3. 1 82 () /CIT(A) 4. 1 82 /CIT 5. &9 *2 /DR 6. ' : /GF.