TMI Blog2005 (9) TMI 586X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mption under section 54F be not denied. In reply, the assessee contended that he was not an independent owner of the house and exemption can be denied only where the assessee is the absolute owner of the house. He also filed details of purchase of the house which showed that he along with his wife had purchased the house on April 13, 1994, for a total consideration of Rs. 3,05,000 out of which the assessee had invested Rs. 1,60,000 and the balance amount was invested by his wife. The copy of the sale deed also showed that it was being purchased in joint ownership. However, the Assessing Officer did not accept the contention of the assessee since in his view, the assessee could be said to be the owner of house at Sion (Mumbai) on the date of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tatus of association of persons only. In support of his arguments, he relied on various judgments reported as CIT v. Mrs. Hilla J. B. Wadia [1995] 216 ITR 376 (Bom) ; CIT v. P. V. Narasimhan [1990] 181 ITR 101 (Mad) ; B. B. Sarkar v. CIT [1981] 132 ITR 150 (Cal) and CIT v. Laxmidas Devidas [1937] 5 ITR 584 (Bom). On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative has relied on the order of the Assessing Officer. The rival submissions have been considered carefully. The question for our consideration is whether, on the facts, the assessee can be said to be the owner of the residential house vis-a-vis the flat at Sion, Mumbai. The case law referred to by the assessee’s counsel is not on the point of issue before us and, therefore, we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... opinion, means ownership to the exclusion of all others. Therefore, where a house is jointly owned by two or more persons, none of them can be said to be the owner of that house. This view of ours is fortified by the judgment of the hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Seth Banarsi Dass Gupta v. CIT [1987] 166 ITR 783, wherein, it was held that a fractional ownership was not sufficient for claiming even fractional depreciation under section 32 of the Act. Because of this judgment, the Legislature had to amend the provisions of section 32 with effect from April 1, 1997, by using the expression “owned wholly or partly”. So, the word “own” would not include a case where a residential house is partly owned by one person or partly owned by othe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
