By JAGDISH D. SHAH | JAGDISH T. PUNJABI
Chartered Accountants
1. Ramphal
Hooda vs. Income Tax Officer (Delhi)
Members: Bhavnesh Saini
(J.M.) and
Dr. B.R.R. Kumar (A.M.)
ITA No. 8478/Del/2019
A.Y.: 2014-15
Date of order: 2nd
March, 2020
Counsel for Assessee /
Revenue: Ved Jain & Umung Luthra / Sanjay Tripathi
Section 54 / 54F – Exemption not denied when the property
was purchased in the name of the spouse instead of the assessee
Two conflicting High Court decisions – In case of transfer
of case between two jurisdictions, the date of filing of appeal is the material
point of time which determines jurisdictional High Court
FACTS
During the year the assessee had earned long-term capital
gain of Rs. 1.42 crores on the sale of property. This gain had been invested in
purchasing another property for Rs. 1.57 crores in the name of his wife. The
assessee claimed exemption of long-term capital gains u/s 54 / 54F. Relying on
the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court, i.e., the Punjab and Haryana
High Court, in the case of CIT Faridabad vs. Dinesh Verma (ITA No. 381 of
2014 dated 6th July, 2015) wherein it was held that ‘the
assessee is not entitled to the benefit conferred u/s 54B if the subsequent
property is purchased by a person other than the assessee…’ the A.O. had
denied the exemption.
It was submitted before the CIT(A) that the case of the
assessee is covered by the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT
vs. Kamal Wahal (351 ITR 4) wherein, on identical facts, the issue had
been decided in favour of the assessee. The CIT(A), however, noted that the
assessee had filed the return with the ITO, Rohtak and the assessment was also
framed at Rohtak. Therefore, the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court
was binding on the assessee and the A.O. Accordingly, the appeal of the
assessee was dismissed.
The assessee submitted before the Tribunal that his PAN was
transferred from Rohtak to Delhi because he was residing in Delhi. The case of
the assessee had also been transferred to Delhi, therefore the jurisdictional
High Court should be the Delhi High Court. He relied upon the judgment of the Delhi
High Court in the case of CIT vs. AAR BEE Industries [2013] 357 ITI 542
wherein it was held that ‘It is the date on which the appeal is filed which
would be the material point of time for considering as to in which court the
appeal is to be filed’. He further pointed out that the appeal of the
assessee had been decided by the CIT(A)-28, New Delhi and the address of the
assessee was also in Delhi. Therefore, it was submitted that the Delhi High
Court is the jurisdictional High Court and its decisions are binding on the
CIT(A).
HELD
The Tribunal noted that the jurisdiction and PAN
of the assessee had been transferred to Delhi and the appeal was also decided
by the CIT(A), New Delhi. Therefore, the Tribunal accepted the submission of
the assessee and held that the CIT(A) was bound to follow the judgments of the
Delhi High Court. Accordingly, relying on the judgments of the Delhi High Court
in the cases of CIT-XII vs. Shri Kamal Wahal (Supra) and of CIT
vs. Ravinder Kumar Arora [2012] 342 ITR 38, the Tribunal allowed the
appeal of the assessee.
