Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Shri Pritam Singh Chahil

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH. I.T.A. No.932 of 2008 (O&M)Date of decision: 06.11.2009 Commissioner of Income Tax. Vs. Shri Pritam Singh Chahil. -----Appellant -----Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOELHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present:-Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Standing Counselfor the revenue.for the revenue. ----- ORDER: 1. The revenue has preferred this appeal under Section260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) againstthe order dated 25.5.2007 of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,Chandigarh Bench ‘B’ in I.T.A. No.734/Chandi/2003 for theassessment year 1997-98, proposing to raise followingsubstantial question of law:- “Whether in the facts & circumstances of the case, theLd. ITAT was right in law in not appreciating the factthat as per the mandate of section 27(iii)(b) read withsub-clause (f) of Sec.269UA of the Income Tax Act,the assessee is “owner of the leased property” and istherefore, not entitled for deduction u/s 54F of theIncome Tax Act.” 2. The assessee is HUF and after return for assessmenthad been processed under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act, re-assessment proceedings were initiated on account of allegederroneous claim of the assessee under Section 54-F for purchaseof flat at Delhi after sale of other property. The claim wasdisallowed on the ground that the assessee owned a house atKasauli. On appeal, the CIT(A) upheld the plea of the assesseethat house at Kasauli was owned in individual capacity by PritamSingh and not as HUF and that even though in wealth tax returnfor the assessment year 1994-95, the said property was shown asself-occupied, this aspect had been duly explained by theassessee and statement in the said return was shown to beincorrect. The CIT(A) observed as under:- “.....The assessing officer has taken the shelter of theproviso to section 54F and the fact that the assesseehas shown in the A.Y. 1994-95 the house at Kasauli inhis wealth tax return. This is not sufficient evidenceconsidering the other facts. The assessee himself isadmitting the mistake of showing the property in hiswealth tax statement in 1994-95 due to ignorance ofthe status. The land and Kasauli building have beensold in 1997. It cannot be said that the assessee haddeleted the property from the statements later on as apre-conceived mind to get the benefit of the deductionu/s 54F in 1997.” 4. The above finding has been affirmed by the Tribunal. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 6. In view of concurrent finding of fact recorded by theCIT(A) and the Tribunal that house at Kasauli was owned by theassessee in individual capacity and not in capacity as HUF, nosubstantial question of law arises. 7. The appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE November 06, 2009ashwani ( GURDEV SINGH ) JUDGE