9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (7) TMI 18X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... perty in Green Park Extension, New Delhi, under section 23(1)(b)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?" The factual position in a nutshell is as follows : For the assessment year 1973-74, the assessee claimed exemption of Rs. 6,000 (Rs. 1,200 per unit) under section 23(1)(b)(ii) of the Act. The claim was in respect of a house property in Green Park Extension, New Delhi, let out to the Cabinet Secretariat, Government of India, on a monthly rent of Rs. 4,000. The claim was rejected by the Assessing Officer on the ground that the property was not being utilised for residential purposes as it was used by the Cabinet Secretariat. The assessee preferred an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (in short "the AAC"). The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... "residential unit", in the context used in the relevant provision necessarily denotes a dwelling unit for residence. We may note here that a different view has been expressed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Dr. J. V. Desai v. CIT [1985] 154 ITR 828. Section 23(1)(b)(ii), so far as is relevant, reads as follows : "Provided further that the annual value as determined under this sub-section shall,---. . . (b) in the case of a building comprising one or more residential units, the erection of which is begun after the 1st day of April, 1961, and completed after the 31st day of March, 1970, for a period of five years from the date of completion of the building, be reduced by a sum equal to the aggregate of---. . . (ii) in respect of any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the question whether the exemption is to be allowed. We may state that user is one of several relevant factors and not the conclusive or determinative one. The intention of the constructor at the time of erection is one of the relevant factors, as stated above. If the intention at the time of erection was user for residential purposes, it is of great relevance and significance. Learned, counsel for the Revenue submitted that in case of an exemption, the provision has to be construed strictly and the onus is on the person who claims exemption to establish that he is entitled to an exemption. There can be no quarrel with the proposition. In fact, in Novopan India Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise and Customs [1994] 6 JT 80 (SC), it was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 991 SC 2049 ; [1990] 4 SCC 256. Lord Halsbury, L. C., observed in IRC v. James Forrest [1890] 15 AC 334 (HL): "All exemptions from taxation to some extent increase the burden on other members of the community . . .". In Littman v. Barron (Inspector of Taxes) [1951] 2 All ER 393, a decision of the Court of Appeal, it was observed that in case of ambiguity a taxing statute should be construed in favour of a taxpayer does not apply to a provision giving a taxpayer relief in certain cases from a section clearly imposing liability. The language with which the case at hand is concerned is clear and is unambiguous, and, therefore, there is no need for seeking the intention and going into the question whether a strict or liberal interpretation is c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
