Itta/277/2015 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax [Central] v. Smt.c.swapna

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN AND THE HON’BLR SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY I.T.T.A.NO.277 OF 2015 JUDGMENT:{Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Ramesh Ranganathan} This appeal, under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act” for brevity),is preferred by the Revenue against the order passed by the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, Hyderabad (Tribunal), in I.T.A.No.672/Hyd/2011 dated 04.05.2012 in thecase of Smt. C. Swapna. In ITA.No.759 of 2011, which also forms part of the batch, the Tribunal held that, asthe assessee had acquired substantial domain over the new house and had madesubstantial payment towards the cost of the land and construction, within the periodspecified under Section 54 of the Act, the assessee must be said to have compliedwith the requirements for claiming exemption under Section 54 of the Act; and, inview thereof, the Assessing Officer should allow the claim of the assessee. In so faras I.T.A.No.672/Hyd/2011 is concerned, the Tribunal held that, on similar andidentical issues in the case of G.Venkatalakshmi (ITA.No.759 of 2011), they haddecided the issue in favour of the assessee by giving certain directions to theAssessing Officer and against the Revenue; on the very same reasoning, the issueshould be decided on similar lines with regards to grant of exemption under Section54 of the Act. Against the order passed by the Tribunal in ITA.No.759 of 2011, the Revenuecarried the matter in appeal to this Court and, by order in ITTA.No.619 of 2014 dated08.10.2014, the appeal was dismissed. As the appeal preferred by the Revenueagainst the order of the Tribunal, in ITA.No.759 of 2011 relating toSmt.G.Venkatalakshmi was dismissed, and as the Tribunal had merely followed thesaid order while granting relief to the respondent-assessee, this appeal alsonecessitates dismissal in accordance with, and in terms, of the order passed by theDivision Bench in ITTA.No.619 of 2014 dated 08.10.2014. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand dismissed. _______________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J) ___________________________ (M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J) 5[th] November 2015 RRB