TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (6) TMI 663
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s to establish that he had purchased/ acquired only one flat, without appreciating the fact that since the property i.e. residential house owned by appellant (having inherited from his late father being self constructed there could not be any agreement. 4. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in not considering/following the judicial pronouncements relied upon by the appellant including that of jurisdictional benches of Hon'ble ITAT without appreciating that the same were binding upon him. 5. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in observing and also in relying upon the decision in the case of M.J. Siwani W CIT (53 taxmann.com 318) considering the same to be the pronouncement of Hon'ble Apex Court, without appreciating that the same was merely dismissal of SLP filed against the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court which does not attracts the doctrine of merger so as to stand substituted in place of order put in before it, nor would it be a declaration of law by the Supreme Court under Article 141 of the constitution, thereby misleading the facts of the case of M.J. Siwani vs CIT (Supra) 6. The Ld. CIT (A) has seriously erred in not following the various decisions relied upon by the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dul Rahim Ghaswalla (flat no. 301), Shri Munaf& Moinuddin Anwar Ghaswalla (legal heirs of late shri Anwar Ghaswalla) (flat no. 302), Shri Ilyas & Zainul Ghaswalla (legal heirs of late Shri Iqbal Ghaswalla) (flat no. 401) and Shri Abdul Suttar Suleman Ghaswala (flat no. 402). According to assessee, all the members are owing/occupying one flat each for which they have been paying electricity bills. The assessee claimed to have filed those electricity bills before the Assessing officer coupled with confirmation letters from the owners of the other flats to the effect that none of them had any right/or interest of whatsoever nature in each other's flats. However, the Assessing Officer disregarded the submission of the assessee and held that since the assessee owned six residential house properties though jointly , therefore the conditions mentioned in section 54F of the Act are not fulfilled in this case hence, the assessee is not eligible for exemption u/s 54F of the Act. The Ld. Assessing Officer relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of M.J. Siwani (supra). The relevant facts of the case and the finding reproduced by the Assessing Officer is extracted....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....upreme Court in Banarsi Dass Gupta (supra), wherein, the Supreme Court considered the provisions contained in section 32 of the Act, would not apply to the faces of the present case. The right of a person, may be one half, in the residential house cannot be taken away without due process of law or it continues till there is a partition of such residential house. Thus, the view expressed by the Tribunal on this issue cannot be accepted. Thus, the order passed by revenue authorities rejecting assessee's claim was to be restored. (Para 26]* Thus, High Court held that in terms of provisions of section 54F, where assessee on date of sale of long term capital asset owns a residential house even jointly with another person, his claim for deduction of capital gain arising from sale of asset has to be rejected." 5. Before us, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee has relied on the following three decisions of the Tribunal, Mumbai Benches to support that even if the assessee co-owner is more than one house, since the fractional ownership in a property does not amounts to violating the conditions laid down u/s 54 of the Act, the assessee is entitled for deduction u/s 54 of the Act. : 1. As....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... property and 50% as clinic; so too for the property at Door No. 828A, Poonamallee High Road, Chennai. The facts thus reveal that as joint owners of the property, the assessee and her husband had shown 50% share with reference to the clinic and the residential portion in their respective returns. Thus, it is clear that as on the date of the transfer, the assessee did not own a residential house in her name only, the income from which was chargeable under the head "income from house property", to bring into operation, the proviso to Section 54F. The rejection of the claim for exemption would arise if only the property stands in the name of the assessee, namely, individual or HUF. Given the fact that the assessee had not owned the property in her name only to the exclusion of anybody else including the husband, but in joint name with her husband, we agree with the submission of the learned senior counsel appearing for the assessee herein that unless and until there are materials to show that the assessee is the exclusive owner of the residential property, the harshness of the proviso cannot be applied to the facts herein. Apart from that, 50% ownership is with reference to the clinic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....15J of the Act. Hon'ble Karnataka High Court, on the other hand, has held that the words 'for the purposes of this section' in Explanation to section 115J(1A) are relevant and cannot be construed to extend beyond the computation of liability to tax. In the opinion of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court, when a deeming fiction is brought under the statute, it is to be carried to its logical conclusions but without creating further deeming fiction so as to include other provisions of the Act which are not made specifically applicable. It is thus evident that views of these two High Courts are in direct conflict with each other. Clearly, therefore, there is no meeting ground between these two judgments and we are also usable to accept the suggestion that we can follow earlier decisions of this Tribunal, or such views, whichever seem more reasonable of one of these High Courts. 7. It may be mentioned that some Benches of the Tribunal have either taken independent view on the issue in this appeal or have later on followed Hon'ble Gauhati High Court, referred to above. However, with the latest judgment of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in Kwality Biscuits Ltd.'s ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is exception, laid down in Littman v. Barron 1952 (2) AIR 393 and followed by apex Court in Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. v. Dy. Commr. of CCT [1992] Suppl. (1) SCC 21 and Novopa India Ltd. v. CCE & C 1994 (73) ELT 769 (SC), has been summed up in the words of Lord Lohen, "in case of ambiguity, a taxing statute should be construed in favour of a tax-payer does not apply to a provision giving tax-payer relied in certain cases from a section clearly imposing liability". This exception, in the present case, has no application. The rule of resolving ambiguity in favour of the assessee does not also apply where the interpretation in favour of assessee will have to treat the provisions unconstitutional, as held in the matter of State of M.P. v. Dadabhoy's New ChirmiryPonri Hill Colliery Co. Ltd. AIR 1972 (SC) 614. Therefore, what follows is that in the peculiar circumstances of the case and looking to the nature of the provisions with which we are presently concerned, the view expressed by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Kwality Biscuits Ltd. case (supra), which is in favour of assessee, deserves to be followed by us. We, therefore, order the deletion of i....