B.N. KRISHNAKUMAR,COIMBATORE vs. ITO, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION WARD,, COIMBATORE
What did the Tribunal hold?
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.
What were the 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.
What were the 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.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- CIT v. V. Natarajan60 citing287 ITR 271 · 2006 · HC
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
Similar judgments
Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.
- Smt. Tejal Kaushal Shah, Mumbai vs Income Tax Officer Ward, 25(1)(5), MumbaiMumbai17 Apr 2025Partly Allowed
Also relies on CIT v. V. Natarajan
The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 54 cannot be denied solely because the property was purchased jointly, provided no double deduction is claimed. For the deemed rental income, the Tribunal found that whi...
- Smt . Rajani Surendra Adamane, Nagpur vs Income Tax Officer Ward 6(1), NagpurNagpur25 Sept 2025Partly Allowed
Also relies on CIT v. V. Natarajan
The Tribunal held that the inclusion of the wife's name in the sale deed of the new property does not disentitle the assessee from claiming the full exemption under Section 54F, provided the investment was made by the as...
- Mr Colathur N. Ram, Mumbai vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 34(1)…Mumbai17 Sept 2024Partly Allowed
Also relies on CIT v. V. Natarajan
The Tribunal directed the assessee to provide evidence for cost of improvement and brokerage to the Assessing Officer for verification. It also held that for Section 54 exemption, the investment in the new property must ...
- Anjappan Rangasamy, Chennai vs DCIT, ChennaiChennai6 Aug 2024Partly Allowed
Also relies on CIT v. V. Natarajan
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal regarding jewellery addition, deleting the addition based on CBDT circulars. For penalty appeals, the Tribunal deleted penalties as the additions were either deleted or partly a...
- A Vijayakumari, Pattukkottai vs ITO, Ncw-1, ThanjavurChennai26 Jul 2019Partly Allowed
Also relies on CIT v. V. Natarajan
The Tribunal held that the assessee could claim exemption under Section 54 even if the new property was not purchased exclusively in her name, citing various High Court decisions. However, the Tribunal upheld the Assessi...
More judgments on Section 54
- Renu Arun Talwar, Mumbai vs Circle 17(1), MumbaiITA 204/MUM/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
- Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(2), Ahmedabad vs Manan Arati Patel, AhmedabadITA 923/AHD/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed6 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
- Rohitbhai Jivrambhai Patel, Vadodara vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward 3(1)(2), VadodaraITA 679/AHD/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2018-19
- Rohitbhai Jivrambhai Patel, Vadodara vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward 3(1)(2), VadodaraITA 679/AHD/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2018-19
- Dy. Commissioner of Income… vs Thomas Myladiyil Augustine, AhmedabadITA 1131/AHD/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2022-23
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- R.K.Service Station, Balasore vs. Commissioner CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Tankala Soumya vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Rayagada Circle, RayagadaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Pooja, Town Hallroad, Cuttack vs. State Tax Officer, Cuttack-I West Circle,CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Chicvogue Fashions Lip, Ganjam vs. State Tax Officer Bhubaneswar- Ii CircleOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Priya, Townhall Road, Cuttack vs. Superintendent Cuttack- I Range, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026