9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (4) TMI 544 - AT - Income TaxLTCG - deduction u/s 54F - joint ownership of more than one residential house - HELD THAT - We find that the Hon ble Madras High Court in Dr. Smt. P.K.Vasanthi Rangarajan ( 2012 (7) TMI 563 - MADRAS HIGH COURT held that merely because the assessee jointly owned another property on the date of transfer of the asset, its claim for deduction under section 54F of the Act could not be rejected in respect of capital gains earned from transfer of original asset. Also see MUKESH ARVINDLAL VAKHARIA, C/O ARVIND SILK MILLS 2023 (10) TMI 185 - ITAT SURAT In the present case also, not even a single decision of the Hon ble jurisdictional High Court, which is contrary to the claim of the assessee, has been placed on record/referred by the Revenue. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the j oint ownership in two residential properties at the time of sale of the original asset does not disentitle the assessee to claim of deduction u/s 54F of the Act. Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of Delay 2. Legality and Jurisdiction of the Order 3. Principles of Natural Justice 4. Disallowance of Deduction u/s 54F Summary: Condonation of Delay: The appeal was delayed by 135 days. The assessee claimed that the impugned order was neither received via registered email nor physically delivered. The delay was attributed to the lack of real-time alerts and the discovery of the order only upon a random check on the e-filing portal. The Tribunal found the reasons for the delay within the parameters for condonation laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag Vs. MST Katiji and others: 1987 SCR (2) 387, and condoned the delay. Legality and Jurisdiction of the Order: The assessee contended that the appellate order by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, was bad, illegal, and without jurisdiction. It was argued that the order was framed in breach of statutory provisions and was perverse, passed without proper application of mind to the facts on record. Principles of Natural Justice: The assessee argued that the CIT(A) failed to grant a proper, sufficient, and adequate opportunity of being heard, thus breaching the principles of natural justice. The order was claimed to be passed without considering the facts and submissions brought on record and without providing an opportunity for a personal hearing. Disallowance of Deduction u/s 54F: The primary issue pertained to the disallowance of Rs. 61,65,546/- u/s 54F. The assessee sold agricultural land and deposited the capital gains in a capital gain account scheme, claiming a deduction for investment in a new residential flat. The AO disallowed the deduction, citing that the assessee was a joint owner of more than one residential house at the time of the sale of the original asset. The CIT(A) upheld this disallowance. The Tribunal considered the submissions and found that joint ownership of more than one residential house does not disentitle the assessee from claiming deduction u/s 54F. The Tribunal referenced the Hon'ble Madras High Court in Dr. Smt. P.K. Vasanthi Rangarajan v/s CIT, [2012] 23 taxmann.com 299 (Mad.), which held that joint ownership does not constitute ownership of a residential house for the purposes of section 54F. The Tribunal also noted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court's dismissal of the SLP in M.J. Siwani v/s CIT did not constitute a binding judgment. Thus, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's claim for deduction u/s 54F. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeal, granting the deduction u/s 54F and leaving other grounds open in light of the relief granted.
|
