1
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
DELHI `D' BENCH, NEW DELHI
BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND
SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA No. 6190/DEL/2016
[Assessment Year: 2013-14]
AJAY KHANNA, VS. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-26,
A-9, RING ROAD, NEW DELHI
NARAINA VIHAR,
NEW DELHI 110 028
(PAN: AAAPK1321Q)
[Appellant] [RESPONDENT]
Assessee by : Sh. Arvind Kumar, Adv.
Revenue by : Sh. Rajat Kumar Kureel, Sr. DR.
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
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
3
invested capital gain purchasing more than one residential houses
within stipulated time limit, assessee would be entitled to benefit of
exemption under section 54." For the sake of convenience, the
relevant para no. 20 of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced as
under:-
"20. We have discussed about the two decisions
from the Karnataka High Court, which, in our
opinion, dealt with similar controversy as is raised
before us herein. The only difference which we find
is that the purchase of the residential houses in the
present case is at different address in the same city
of Madurai. In D. Ananda Basappa case stated
(supra), two flats in question were admittedly
adjacent to each other and which were joined to
become one residential house. In the case of
Khoobchand M Makhija (supra), two door nos are
given viz., 623 and 729, but the complete
addresses and even the name of the city is not
clear in the facts narrated in the said Judgment. But
in our considered opinion, the difference of location
of the newly purchased residential house(s) will not
alter the position for interpretation of the word 'a
residential house' to the effect that it may include
more than one or plural residential houses, as held
by the Karnataka High Court, with which we
respectfully agree. The location of the newly
purchased houses by the same assessee viz., HUF
out of sale consideration received on the sale of
original capital Asset or a residential house in the
4
given circumstances of availability of such
residential houses as per the requirement of the
HUF will not alter the position of interpretation."
4.1 We have gone through the judgment passed by the Hon'ble
Madras High Court in the case of Tilokchand & Sons vs. Income Tax
Officer, Ward-II (4), Madurai (Supra), especially the para no. 20 as
reproduced above and we are of the view that the issue in dispute
involved in the present appeal is exactly similar to the aforesaid
issue already adjudicated by the Hon'ble High Court, hence, the
issue in dispute is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgement.
Therefore, respectfully following the aforesaid precedent, the
addition involved in the present case is hereby deleted and appeal
of the assessee is accordingly allowed.
5. In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is allowed.
The order pronounced on 03.02.2020.
Sd/- Sd/-
[PRASHANT MAHARISHI] [H.S. SIDHU]
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Dated:03-02-2020
SRB
Copy forwarded to:
1. Appellant
2. Respondent
3. CIT
4. CIT(A) Asst. Registrar,
5. DR ITAT, New Delhi
|
