Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chandigarh-Ii v. Shri Sanjay Sachdeva

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH I.T.A No. 479 of 2008 Date of decision : August 26, 2008 Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh-II ...... Appellant through Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Advocate v. Shri Sanjay Sachdeva, ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J This is an appeal by the revenue on the following question of law :- “Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case andin law the ITAT was justified in allowing exemptionunder section 10(13A) of the Act in respect of twoaccommodations whereas `residential accommodation'and `rent' as mentioned in section 10(13A) have beenused as a `singular' and not as `plural' which could havemeant any number of accommodations.” The assessee claimed HRA deduction under Section 10(13A) of I.T.A No. 479 of 2008 the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) in respect of two houses,hired by him i.e one at Delhi amounting to Rs.1.80 lac, and the other atJalandhar amounting to Rs.1.08 lac on the ground that even though he wasposted at Jalandhar yet he had to frequently visit Delhi in the course of hisduties and no official accommodation was provided to him at either of thetwo places. The Assessing Officer disallowed the amount of Rs.1.80 lac inrespect of the rent paid for the accommodation occupied by the assessee atDelhi since, as per the Assessing Officer, the assessee was posted atJalandhar. The appeal, filed by the assessee, before the Commissioner ofIncome Tax(A), Chandigarh was allowed on the ground that there is nomention in Section 10(13A) of the Act that rent for only one house can beclaimed and that the only requirement was occupation of the house by theassessee. The revenue filed an appeal before the ITAT, Chandigarh Bench-(A). The Tribunal dismissed the appeal by holding as follows :- “..... However, without going into much deliberation andrestricting ourselves to the question before us and thelanguage of this impugned section, it can be said that theonly requirement as per section is of occupation of house,therefore, the occupation of Delhi house is a constructivepossession specially in the light of the fact that it was arented accommodation and rent was actually paid by theassessee, therefore, the assessee is entitled to theallowance which is permissible as per HRA given by theemployer....” I.T.A No. 479 of 2008 In our opinion, the question whether the assessee actuallyoccupied two houses is one of fact and that the words `residentialaccommodation' and `rent' have not been used in the `singular' sense. It isnot correct to hold, as contended by learned counsel for the revenue, that ifthe order of the Tribunal is accepted, it would necessarily lead to aninterpretation that an individual can occupy any number ofaccommodations. In our considered view, every case would have to bedecided on its own merit and it would always have to be incumbent on theassessee to prove as a fact that he actually occupied any additional house inthe exigencies of his circumstances. Thus, the question posed by the appealis answered against the revenue and consequently, the appeal is dismissedwith no order as to costs. ( AJAY TEWARI ) JUDGE August 26, 2008'kk' ( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ) JUDGE