1984 (4) TMI 77 - AT - Income Tax

HUF entitled to property concession under IT Act: ITAT Bangalore decision

The Appellate Tribunal ITAT Bangalore ruled in favor of the Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) in the case concerning the concession in determining the annual ... Annual Value, House Property Issues:1. Applicability of concession in determining annual letting value to self-occupied property for members of Hindu Undivided Family (HUF).2. Interpretation of section 23(2) and section 22 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.3. Whether the proviso to section 23(2) can be extended to HUFs.4. Analysis of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court's decision in CIT v. Mohd. Amin Tyamboo [1980] 125 ITR 375.Analysis:The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Bangalore addresses the issue of granting concession in determining the annual letting value permissible to self-occupied property for members of Hindu Undivided Family (HUF). The revenue contended that the concession is allowable only in the case of individuals and not HUFs, citing section 23(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal analyzed the relevant sections and observed that the word 'he' in section 22 should not be interpreted restrictively to apply only to individuals, as it could lead to unintended consequences. However, the key issue was the applicability of the proviso to section 23(2) to HUFs.The Tribunal delved into the interpretation of section 23(2) and section 22 of the Act, emphasizing that the proviso to section 23(2) should be analyzed concerning the ownership and use of the property for 'own residence.' The judgment discussed the Jammu and Kashmir High Court's decision in Mohd. Amin Tyamboo's case, highlighting that the relief for self-occupied property is available only to individual assesses, not other entities. The Court emphasized the importance of total income of the owner in determining the applicability of the proviso.Further, the Tribunal examined the claim from the perspective of a joint family, asserting that if the property belongs to a joint family, and its members use it for their residence, the conditions of the proviso to section 23(2) are satisfied. The judgment rejected a restrictive interpretation that would exclude the relief when the individual owner is absent, emphasizing that the proviso should apply as long as natural persons from the joint family use the property for their residence. The Tribunal concluded in favor of the assessee, highlighting that the proviso's concession should be applicable if any member of the joint family uses the property for their residence, dismissing the appeals filed by the revenue.