9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 674X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... observed by the by the Hon ble Court that an asset newly acquired after the sale of the original asset also can be buildings or lands appurtenant thereto, which also should be a residential house . Therefore, the letter a in the context it is used should not be construed as meaning single . It was concluded by the Hon ble High Court that, being an indefinite article, the said expression should be read in consonance with the other words buildings and lands and, therefore, the singular a residential house also permits use of plural by virtue of section 13(2) of the General Clauses Act - See SMT. RADHA K. GOPAN VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME-TAX [ 1993 (6) TMI 7 - KERALA HIGH COURT] . As decided amendment to section 54 of the I.T.Act with effect from 01.04.2015 has been held to be prospective by the Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Arun K.Thiagarajan[ 2020 (6) TMI 513 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] Thus we hold that the assessee is entitled to the benefit of section 54F of the I.T.Act, since the relevant A.Y. was prior to the amendment to section 54 of the I.T.Act (i.e.01.04.2015). - Decided in favour of assessee. Addition u/s 68 - Violation of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of residential house and has not filed any documentary evidences in support of the claim of deduction u/s 54F of the I.T.Act. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal to the first appellate authority. During the course of appellate proceedings, the CIT(A) sought for a remand report and on receipt of the same, the appeal was disposed of by confirming the denial of exemption u/s 54F of the I.T.Act. The CIT(A) was of the view that the assessee had built multiple residential units instead of one residential unit. The CIT(A) further held that the units were let out and were not being used by assessee and her family, thereby rejecting the claim of exemption u/s 54F of the I.T.Act. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee preferred an appeal to the Tribunal. Before the ITAT, it was contended that the legislature has amended the provisions of section 54F of the I.T.Act vide Finance (No.2) Act, 2014 with effect from 01.04.2015 and has withdrawn the deduction for more than one residential house with effect from 01.04.2015 onwards. It was submitted that the amendment was prospective and the assessee s case being prior to the amendment, the Income Tax Authorities w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case of Arun K.Thiagarajan (supra). The relevant finding of the Hon ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Arun K.Thiagarajan (supra), reads as follow:- 12. A Bench of this court in the case of Smt.KG Rukminiamma (supra) dealt with the meaning of expression `a residential house used in Section 54(1) of the Act while taking into account Section 132(2) of the General Clauses Act, 1897 held that unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context, the words in singular shall include the plural and vice versa. It was further held that context in which the expression `a residential house is used in Section 54 makes it evident that it is not the intention of the legislature to convey the meaning that it refers to a single residential house. It was also held that an asset newly acquired after sale of original asset can also be buildings or lands appurtenant thereto, which also should be residential house, therefore, the letter `a in the context it is used should not be construed as meaning singular, but the expression should be read in consonance with other words viz., buildings and lands. Accordingly, the contention raised by the revenue was rejected. Similar vi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d as plural by various courts by taking into account the context in which the aforesaid expression was used. The subsequent amendment of the Act also fortifies the view taken by this court as well as Madras High Court and Delhi High Court. It is trite law that the principle underlying the decision would be binding as precedent in a case. In Halsbury Laws of England, Volume 22. Page 1682. Page 796, the relevant extract reads as under: The enunciation of the reasons or principle on which a question before a court has been decided is alone binding as a precedent. This underlying principle is often termed the ratio decided, that is to say, the general reasons given for the ecision of the general grounds on which it is based, detached or abstracted from the specific peculiarities of the particular case which gives rise to the decision. [Also see `Sate of Haryana v. Ranbir of Rand, (2006) 5 SCC 167 Girnar Traders v. State of Maharashtra [2007] 7 SCC 555]. 15. This Court as well as Madras and Delhi High Court have interpreted the expression `a residential house and have held that the aforesaid expression includes plural. The ratio of the decisions rendered by coord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant. 1,50,000 I. Total Source accepted by the CIT(A) 18,00,000 d. Repayment of loan by agriculturist Sri.K.M.Srinivas on 26.05.2012 10,00,000 e. Cash received from agriculturist Mrs.Lakshmidevamma, relative of the assessee on 24.05.2012 2,00,000 f. Cash loan obtained from Sri.A.N.Srinivas on 02.02.2013 5,00,000 II. Total Source not accepted by the CIT(A) 17,00,000 Total I + II 35,00,000 The appellant submits that the disallowance under section 68 of the Act is uncalled for on the facts and circumstances of the case. The appellant is extracting the provisions of section 68 for convenience: 68. Where any sum is found credited in the books of the assessee maintained for any previous year, and the assessee offers no explanation about ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... perative Bank Ltd. (2005) 278 ITR 170 (Guj.) The appellant submits that she has discharged the primary onus by giving the affidavits and confirmation letters from the three persons confirming paying money to the appellant in cash which ought to have been appreciated by the lower authorities and ought to have summoned the persons. Under law the appellant can be asked to prove the source of the credits in the books of account but not the source of the source. Reliance is placed on the decision of Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of DCIT v. Rohini Builders (2002)256 ITR 360. The Hon ble Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed by the revenue against this judgment is reported in (2002) 254 ITR (St.) 275. It is also submitted that the learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the affidavits submitted by the 3 parties i.e., Sri.K.M.Srinivas, Mrs.Lakshmidevamma and Sri.A.N.Srinivas have stated that they are agriculturists however any of them have any income chargeable to tax is not mentioned in the affidavits and failed to appreciate that the second proviso to Section 269SS would be applicable to the case of the appellant. The CIT(A) err ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ences furnished by the appellant and the additions confirmed of ₹ 17,00,000 cannot be sustained in law on the facts and circumstances of the case. 11. The learned Departmental Representative supported the orders of the Income Tax Authorities. 12. We have heard rival submissions and perused the material on record. The CIT(A) had not accepted the source of ₹ 17 lakh. Out of the total amount of ₹ 17 lakh not accepted by the CIT(A), the assessee had received repayment from Shri K.M.Srinivas on 02.02.2013 amounting to ₹ 10 lakh. This amount has been paid by the assessee vide cheque No.437961 dated 14.03.2012 to Shri K.M.Srinivas as a stop gap arrangement, so as to support agricultural activities of Shri K.M.Srinivas, who is a relative of the assessee. Shri K.M.Srinivas had repaid ₹ 10 lakh to the assessee by cash on 26.05.2012. The assessee had filed confirmation letter from Shri K.M.Srinivas. Similarly, for an amount of ₹ 2 lakh received from Smt.Lakshmidevamma and Shri A.N.Srinivas to the extent of ₹ 5 lakh also, the assessee had filed confirmation letters from them. The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Mehta Parikh Co. v. CI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
