9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (10) TMI 529 - AT - Income TaxLTCG - deduction u/s 54F - joint ownership at the time of sale of the original asset - as per AO the assessee is owner of several other properties and therefore does not fulfil the requirement to claim deduction u/s 54F - whether joint ownership of more than one residential house shall disentitle the assessee from claiming deduction u/s 54F? - HELD THAT - We find that 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 u/s 54F of the Act could not be rejected in respect of capital gains earned from transfer of original asset. Also see Zainul Abedin Ghaswala 2023 (6) TMI 663 - ITAT MUMBAI Thus, we are of the considered view that the joint ownership at the time of sale of the original asset does not disentitle the assessee to claim the deduction under section 54F of the Act. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the findings of the learned CIT(A) on this issue and the same is upheld. As a result, grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the assessee is entitled to claim a deduction under section 54F of the Income Tax Act when the assessee is a co-owner of multiple residential properties at the time of the sale of the original asset. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Entitlement to Deduction under Section 54F: The primary issue in this appeal is whether the joint ownership of more than one residential house disqualifies the assessee from claiming a deduction under section 54F of the Income Tax Act. The Revenue's contention is based on the premise that the assessee, being a co-owner of multiple properties, does not meet the conditions for claiming the deduction. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed the deduction claimed by the assessee, relying on the decision of the Karnataka High Court in CIT v. M.J. Siwani, which held that joint ownership of residential properties precludes the benefit under section 54F. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], however, allowed the deduction, holding that a co-owner cannot be considered an absolute owner and, therefore, should be entitled to the deduction under section 54F. The CIT(A) relied on various judicial pronouncements that favored the assessee's position. In the appellate proceedings, the Tribunal considered the conflicting judicial precedents on this issue. The Revenue emphasized the Karnataka High Court's decision, which was upheld by the Supreme Court's dismissal of the Special Leave Petition. Conversely, the assessee relied on the Madras High Court's decision in Dr. Smt. P.K. Vasanthi Rangarajan v. CIT, which held that joint ownership does not preclude the deduction under section 54F. The Tribunal noted that the Madras High Court's decision supports the view that joint ownership does not disqualify an assessee from claiming the deduction. The Tribunal also considered decisions from other benches that have favored the assessee in similar circumstances, emphasizing that the mere dismissal of an SLP by the Supreme Court does not constitute a binding precedent. The Tribunal, aligning with the Madras High Court's interpretation, concluded that joint ownership should not prevent the assessee from availing the deduction under section 54F, as long as the assessee is not the exclusive owner of more than one residential property. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity in allowing the deduction to the assessee. In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming that the joint ownership of properties does not disqualify the assessee from claiming a deduction under section 54F, thereby resolving the issue in favor of the assessee. The decision underscores the principle that in cases of conflicting judicial interpretations, the view favorable to the assessee should be adopted, especially in the absence of a contrary jurisdictional High Court ruling.
|
