Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH : CHENNAI
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY
आदेश / O R D E R
PER GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-14, Chennai in dated 23.05.2018 for the assessment year 2009-10.
Mr.S.Bharath represented on behalf of the Revenue and Mr.K.Ravi represented on behalf of the Assessee.
In this appeal, the Revenue has raised the following grounds:-
“1. The order of the learned CIT(A) is contrary to facts and circumstances of the case.
2.1 The learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition towards denial of 50% deduction claim u/s 54F of Rs.73,33,110/-.
2.2 The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that the provision of section 54/54F does not include investment made jointly with a relative, who is not a legal heir and it is immaterial that no contribution was made by that relative.
2.3 The learned CIT(A) ought to have considered the ratio of the decisions in the case of Prakash Vs ITO(Bom) 312 ITR 40, Ganta Vijay Lakshmi Vs ITO (AP) 229 Taxman 594, and D.Devadass Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai) 48 ITR (Trib) 613.”
It was submitted by ld.D.R that only issue raised in this appeal was against the action of Ld.CIT(A) in allowing the assessee’s claim of deduction u/s.54F of the Act in respect of purchase of a new property along with his brother, Mr.Deniel Manohar Raj. The ld.D.R vehemently supported the order of ld. Assessing Officer.
In reply, ld.A.R submitted that the assessee had sold a residential property and reinvested in other investments viz. Capital Gains Investment Scheme, rural Electrification Bonds along with his brother and another residential house. It was a submission that as the assessee had invested jointly with his brother, who is not a legal heir, the ld. Assessing Officer had denied the deduction u/s.54F of the Act.
It was a further submission that the assessee’s brother had also categorically given a certificate that he has not invested any money in the construction of the residential house by the assessee. It was a submission that Ld.CIT(A) had followed the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of CIT Vs.V.Natarajan,(2006) 154 Taxmaan 399 (Mad), as also in the case of DIT Vs. Mrs.Jennifer Bhide in 15 Taxman.Com Kar(2011) and in the case of CIT Vs.Ravinder Kumar Arora (2011) 15 Taxmann.com 307(Delhi). The ld.A.R vehemently supported the order of the CIT(Appeals).
We have considered the rival submissions. Admittedly, the assessee has invested his entire capital gains in the acquisition of a new residential property. Admittedly, the joint owner has also categorically admitted that he has not made any investments in the construction of the property in the name of the assessee. Just because, the assessee has made an investment and has held it jointly with the assessee’s brother, it would not disentitle the assessee to claim of deduction u/s.54F of the Act, especially when he is the one, who has made the entire investments. This being so and as it is noticed that the ld.CIT(A) has followed the judicial discipline in following the decisions of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal, we find no reason to interfere in the order of the CIT(Appeals) and consequently, the same has been upheld.
In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court after conclusion of hearing on 13th December, 2018, at Chennai.