Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the CIT(A) order for assessment year 2021-22. The primary dispute concerned the determination of capital gains and the denial of deduction under Section 54, with the AO treating the entire sale consideration and capital gains in the assessee's hands alone.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the new residential property was purchased in joint names by the assessee, his son, and wife, who also made corresponding investments and deposits. The AO had overlooked this fact. Therefore, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the AO for re-adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the capital gains and the benefit of Section 54 deduction should be considered only for the assessee or also for the co-owners (son and wife) who made investments in the property.
Sections Cited
54
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI ABY T VARKEY & SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA
B.N.Krishnakumar, Income Tax Officer, No.1490, Chalet Place, International Taxation Ward, Pensacola Florida, Foreign Coimbatore. United States. C/o. Chartered Finservers, No.91, Mecricar Road, R.S.Puram, Coimbatore [PAN: BGLPK0671H] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee by : Mr.M.Karunakaran, Advocate, प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue by : Mrs.C.Yamuna, CIT. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 17.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 08.08.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER AMITABH SHUKLA, A.M :
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order bearing DIN & Order No.ITBA / APL / S / 250 / 2024-25 / 1069894698(1) dated 23.10.2024 of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax [herein after “CIT(A), Chennai-16 for the assessment year 2021-22. The reference to the word “Act” in this order hereinafter shall mean the Income Tax Act, 1961 as amended from time to time.
2.0 The ground of appeal no.1 has been found to be general in nature and hence dismissed. Further, grounds of appeal No. 2 to 4 were admitted by the Ld.AR as not pressed and hence the same are also dismissed. 3.0 The only controversy that is left to be adjudicated is qua grounds of appeal nos. 5 to 9. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee has vehemently argued that the Ld.AO had treated entire sale consideration and corresponding capital gains in assessee’s hands only. It was submitted that the same is not true and that the assessee’s son and wife were also co-owners in the newly acquired property and had also made corresponding investments. It was argued that the new residential property was purchased in joint name. The Ld.AO had apparently missed this critical fact of this case while considering allowance of deduction u/s 54. The Ld.Counel also submitted that assessee’s son and wife had also made deposits in the capital gains deposit account and hence eligible for grant of exemption u/s 54. The Ld.Counsel therefore submitted that deduction u/s 54 ought to have been allowed in the hands of son and wife also. In support of its contentions, the Ld.Counsel placed on record a detailed paper book as well as calculation of capital gains as available in the hands of the assessee as well as the son and wife. The Ld. Counsel also relied upon a plethora of judicial pronouncements including decision delivered by this tribunal in the case of Mrs.Baskari Page - 2 - of 4 / Chny / 2020, D.Devadoss / Mds / 2015 as well as Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of V.Natarajan, 287 ITR 271. It was accordingly requested that the matter may be considered to be remitted back to the Ld.AO for consideration of proportionate allowance of deduction u/s 54 to his son and wife. 4.0 Per contra, the Ld.DR relied upon the order of the lower authorities. 5.0 We have heard rival submissions in the light of material available on records. The only dispute in the case appears to be regarding the determination of entire capital gains in the hands of the assessee and denial of exemption u/s 54 to the co-owners being assessee’s son and wife. We have noted that the Ld.AO has indicated on page 4 of the order regarding the non-availability of complete details. The Ld.CIT(A) has also summarily rejected the objections of the assessee as evident from page 12 of his order. Be that as it may be, we are of the considered view that in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to remit the matter back to the file of the Ld.AO for readjudication de novo. The Ld.AO shall examine the investments made by assessee’s son and wife in the new property and decide the issue in accordance with law considering the judicial precedents relied upon by the assessee, referred herein above. The Ld.AO shall give due opportunity of heard to the assessee. The assessee shall be at liberty to produce all the evidence Page - 3 - of 4 Ld.AO including those filed before us. Accordingly, the grounds of appeal nos. 5 to 9 are allowed for statistical purposes. 6.0 In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. Order pronounced on 8th , Aug-2025 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (एबी टी. वर्की) (अधमताभ शुक्ला) (ABY T VARKEY) (AMITABH SHUKLA) न्याधयक सदस्य / Judicial Member लेखा सदस्य /Accountant Member चेन्नई/Chennai, धदनांक/Dated: 8th , Aug-2025. KB/- आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy to: 1. अिीिार्थी/Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent 3. आयकर आयुक्त/CIT - Chennai/Coimbatore/Madurai/Salem. 4. तिभागीय प्रतितिति/DR 5. गार्ड फाईि/GF
Page - 4 - of 4