1995 (9) TMI 379 - AT - Income Tax

Assessee denied tax exemption for owning second property

The Tribunal concluded that the assessee was the owner of another residential property at 1, Jor Bagh, New Delhi, and therefore not entitled to the ... - Issues Involved:1. Exemption claimed under section 54F of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. Ownership of another residential house property.3. Administration and distribution of estate under the Indian Succession Act, 1925.4. Applicability of section 168 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.5. Mutation of property and its impact on ownership.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Exemption Claimed Under Section 54F of the Income-tax Act, 1961:The assessee claimed exemption under section 54F for the capital gains derived from the sale of shares. The Assessing Officer denied the exemption on the ground that the assessee owned another residential property at 1, Jor Bagh, New Delhi. The CIT (Appeals) upheld this decision. The Tribunal examined whether the assessee was indeed the owner of the Jor Bagh property, which would disqualify her from claiming the exemption under section 54F.2. Ownership of Another Residential House Property:The Tribunal scrutinized the ownership of the Jor Bagh property. The assessee argued that she was not the legal owner as the mutation had not been effected. However, the Tribunal found that the property was bequeathed to the assessee and others by the will of Mrs. S.D. Puri, and the probate had been granted. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee was a co-owner of the Jor Bagh property, as evidenced by the rent being collected in her name and the application for mutation filed by the executor.3. Administration and Distribution of Estate Under the Indian Succession Act, 1925:The Tribunal referred to the provisions of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, particularly sections 332 and 333, which state that the assent of the executor to the legacy transfers the property to the legatee. The Tribunal found that the administration of the estate had been completed, and the property had been distributed among the legatees, making the assessee a co-owner of the Jor Bagh property.4. Applicability of Section 168 of the Income-tax Act, 1961:The assessee contended that the property was still under the administration of the executor and should be assessed under section 168. The Tribunal rejected this argument, noting that the administration of the estate was complete, and the property had been distributed. Thus, section 168 was not applicable, and the income from the property was assessable in the hands of the legatees.5. Mutation of Property and Its Impact on Ownership:The Tribunal addressed the issue of mutation, stating that mutation in the records of the Land and Development Office (L&DO) was not essential for the assessee to be considered the owner of the property. The Tribunal emphasized that the title of the legatees becomes complete upon the assent of the executor, and mutation is merely an administrative procedure to update records.Conclusion:The Tribunal concluded that the assessee was the owner of another residential property at 1, Jor Bagh, New Delhi, and thus, not entitled to the exemption under section 54F of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The appeals of the assessee were dismissed.