TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 1272X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... COURT] squarely applies to the case of the assessee wherein as clearly held that joint ownership of a property could not be held to stand in assessee’s way of claiming exemption u/s 54 of the Act. DR could not point out any contrary decision in revenue’s favor. - Decided against revenue - I.T.A. No.1880/Mum/2015 - - - Dated:- 31-7-2017 - SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JM AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM For the Appellant : None For the Respondent : T.A.Khan (Sr.AR) ORDER Per Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. The captioned appeal by Revenue for Assessment Year [AY] 2011- 12 assails the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4 [CIT(A)], Mumbai dated 12/01/2015 qua relief provided to the assessee u/s 5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rty in the status of individual and joint ownership in another house was no impediment to the claim of the assessee. Reliance was placed on various judicial pronouncements for the contention but not convinced, Ld. AO denied the said deduction and added the resultant LTCG to the income of the assessee. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee contested the same with success before Ld. CIT(A) vide impugned order dated 12/01/2015 and raised similar contentions. After careful consideration of the same, the Ld. CIT(A) agreed with the claim of the assessee by making following observation:- 5.2 . GROUND OF APPEAL NO.1[ Denial of Claim u/s 54F ₹ 235,58,883/-]; 5.2.1 Having carefully and dispassionately considered the fact and circumstances of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot own fully and wholly more than one residential house, other than the new asset, on the date of transfer of the original asset in his capacity of a resident individual. The second residential house at Kurla Apartment was jointly owned by more than one person The A.O. has denied appellant s claim of exemption u/s 54F of the Act on the ground that appellant was already a co-owner of another flat Similar facts have been considered and decided by the jurisdictional bench of Hon ble ITAT in the case of ITO.Ward 22(3)(3) vs. Rasiklal N.Satra reported as (2006) 98 ITD 335 (Mum). Hon ble ITAT has held that where the properties owned by more than one person it cannot be said that any one of them is the owner of the property. Joint ownership is dif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt owns wholly and fully only one residential house in his individual capacity, The second flat is owned jointly with his daughter and therefore; the second flat owned in the capacity of AOP or BOI or in any other capacity, cannot be a disqualification for claiming exemption u/s.54 of the Act. 5.2.5 Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Prakash v/s. ITO 312 ITR 40 (Bom) has held that section 54F of the Act contemplates only investment in residential property by the assessee. Section 54 of the Act refers to the assessee, being an individual or a HUF. Incidentally, both are different legal entities. 5.2.6. Having regard to facts and circumstances of the case, it is held that for granting the exemption under section 54F of the. Act, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the deduction was rightly denied to him. 5. We have heard the contentions and perused relevant material on record. We note that the Ld. CIT(A) has granted relief to assessee by placing reliance on many judicial pronouncements where a liberal view has been taken by various courts / authorities as It is well settled that beneficial provisions should be construed liberally. We find that the ratio of decision of Madras High Court rendered in Dr. Smt. P. K. Vasanthi Rangarajan Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Chennai (252 CTR 336) (Mad.) squarely applies to the case of the assessee. The Hon ble court has clearly held that joint ownership of a property could not be held to stand in assessee s way of claiming exemption u/s 54 of the Act. The Ld ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
