Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI ‘D’ BENCH, NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI H.S. SIDHU & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI
ORDER
PER H.S. SIDHU, JM
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals]-29, New Delhi dated 30.09.2016 pertaining to assessment year 2013-14 on the following grounds:- 1. That in the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in disallowing the claim of deduction u/s. 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of investment made in second house property by the appellant, on the ground that deduction under section 54 is allowable with respect to investment made only in one residential property.
2. That in the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in not appreciating the fact that the amendment brought u/s. 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by Finance (No. 2) Act, 2014, w.e.f. 01.04.2015 is prospective in nature and hence the disallowance of deduction in investment made by the appellant in second house property is bad in law. 2. At the time hearing, Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that the issue regarding the claim of deduction u/s. 54 of the I.T. Act, 1961 in respect of investment made in the second house property by the assessee has already been adjudicated and decided in favour of the assessee by the various Hon’ble Courts and Tribunal including the judgment of the Hon’ble Madras High Court dated 14.03.2019 reported in [2019] 105 taxmann.com 151 (Madras) in the case of Tilokchand & Sons vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-II (4), Madurai. He also draw our attention towards para no. 20 of the aforesaid judgment by filing the copy of the said decision and stated that respectfully following the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Madras High Court, the addition in dispute may be deleted by allowing the appeal of the assesee.
3. On the contrary, Ld. DR relied upon the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the orders of the revenue authorities especially the judgment dated 14.3.2019 of the Hon’ble Madras High Court reported in [2019] 105 taxmann.com 151 (Madras) in the case of Tilokchand & Sons vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-II (4), Madurai wherein the Hon’ble Court has held that “whether where assessee HUF sold its residential house and