ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 1(2), CHENNAI vs. G.DHANASEKAR, CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2540/CHNY/2017Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 February 2018AY 2013-144 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 54F, effective from 01.04.2015, was not retrospective and thus not applicable to the assessment year in question. Therefore, the CIT(Appeals) order was upheld.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(Appeals) order allowing exemption under Section 54F for capital gains. The assessees claimed exemption for investing in a residential house.

What were the issues?

Whether the amendment to Section 54F of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is retrospective in nature and applicable to the assessment year 2013-14.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 54F

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show 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.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN & SHRI S. JAYARAMAN

Hearing: 30.01.2018Pronounced: 28.02.2018

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No.2540/Mds/2017
ITA No.2541/Mds/2017

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

आदेश /O R D E R

PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1.

Both the appeals of the Revenue are directed against the respective orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -2, Chennai, dated 28.07.2017 and pertain to assessment year 2013- 14.

2.

No one appeared for the assessee inspite of issue of notice.

Therefore, we heard the Ld. Departmental Representative and proceed to dispose the appeal on merit.

3.

Smt. Ruby George, the Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that the assessees claimed exemption under Section 54F of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') in respect of capital gain. The CIT(Appeals) allowed the claim of the assessees on the basis of the judgment of Madras High Court in CIT v. V.R.

Karpagam (2014) 226 Taxman 197. Placing reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in M.J. Siwani v. CIT (2015) 53 taxmann.com 318, the Ld. D.R. submitted that even the capital asset owned by the assessee jointly with other person would be considered as one residential house. Therefore, according to the Ld. D.R., the CIT(Appeals) is not correct in allowing the claim of the assessees.

4.

We have examined the submission of Ld. Departmental Representative on the basis of material available on record. In the case before us, it is not a case of the Revenue that the assessees are jointly owning any other residential house. The specific case of the Revenue is that the assessees own more than one house. The Madras High Court in the case of V.R. Karpagam (supra) found that Section 54F of the Act was amended with effect from 01.04.2015. Before the amendment, an assessee can have more than one house. The Madras High Court found that the amendment made with effect from 01.04.2015 is retrospective in operation, therefore, it is not applicable for earlier years. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the judgment of Supreme Court in M.J. Siwani (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the case. Since the CIT(Appeals) has followed the judgment of Madras High Court, this Tribunal do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower authority and accordingly the same is confirmed.

5.

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue stand dismissed.

More judgments on Section 54F

All 2,628 judgments and leading authorities on Section 54F →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →