Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2021 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (7) TMI 674 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance of exemption u/s 54F - assessee had constructed multiple residential houses and not a single residential unit - Scope of amendment to section 54F - HELD THAT:- The provisions of section 54F of I.T.Act was amended vide Finance (No.2) Act, 2014 with effect from 01.04.2015 and has withdrawn deduction for more than one residential unit with effect from 01.04.2015 by replacing word “a” with “one”. In this context, it is relevant to mention that the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court, prior to the amendment, in the case of CIT v. Smt.K.G.Rukminiamma [2010 (8) TMI 482 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] had held that “residential unit house”, used in section 54 makes it clear that, it was not the intention of the legislature to convey the meaning that it refers to a single residential house. As held by the Hon’ble High Court that if that was the intention, they would have used the word “one”. As in the earlier part, the words used are buildings or lands which are plural in number and that is referred to as “a residential house, the original asset. It was further observed by the by the Hon’ble Court that an asset newly acquired after the sale of the original asset also can be buildings or lands appurtenant thereto, which also should be “a residential house”. Therefore, the letter “a” in the context it is used should not be construed as meaning “single”. It was concluded by the Hon’ble High Court that, being an indefinite article, the said expression should be read in consonance with the other words “buildings” and “lands” and, therefore, the singular “a residential house” also permits use of plural by virtue of section 13(2) of the General Clauses Act - See SMT. RADHA K. GOPAN VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME-TAX [1993 (6) TMI 7 - KERALA HIGH COURT]. As decided amendment to section 54 of the I.T.Act with effect from 01.04.2015 has been held to be prospective by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Arun K.Thiagarajan[2020 (6) TMI 513 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] Thus we hold that the assessee is entitled to the benefit of section 54F of the I.T.Act, since the relevant A.Y. was prior to the amendment to section 54 of the I.T.Act (i.e.01.04.2015). - Decided in favour of assessee. Addition u/s 68 - Violation of provisions of section 269SS - unexplained cash deposit - HELD THAT:- In the instant case, the A.O. has not made any opinion on the source of cash deposit in the remand report submitted to the CIT(A), but only pointed out the violation of provisions of section 269SS of the I.T.Act. Violation of provisions of section 269SS of the I.T.Act calls for penalty u/s 271D of the I.T.Act, which is a separate proceeding. Violation of provisions of section 269SS of the I.T.Act cannot be the ground for making addition u/s 68 of the I.T.Act. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that the addition sustained by the CIT(A) u/s 68 of the I.T.Act is uncalled for and we delete the same. Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.
|