High Court of Madras
Case Law Search
Commissioner of Income Tax v. P.Chinniah - TAX CASE. APPEAL No.28 of 2007  RD-TN 464 (5 February 2007)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 05/02/2007
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARAN
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE CHITRA VENKATARAMAN
TAX CASE. (APPEAL) No.28 of 2007
The Commissioner of Income Tax,
Chennai IV. ....Appellant Vs
P.Chinniah ....Respondent Appeal against the order, dated 28.07.2006, made in ITA No.1068/Mds/2001 on the file of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'B' Bench. For appellant : Mr.J.Narayanaswamy, Standing Counsel. J U D G M E N T
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHITRA VENKATARAMAN,J.) This appeal is at the instance of the Revenue, raising the following questions of law :
1.Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the existing residential property belonged to the HUF purely on the premise that the business from where the funds were obtained to buy that property was started using HUF funds ?
2.Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the property at Ramavaram was purchased out of the agricultural income of the HUF, when the assessing officer has given a clear finding that the HUF did not have enough income to make such an investment ?
3.Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the property purchased by the assessee was only a residential property and not a commercial property?
2. The assessee derived capital gains from his relinquishing of tenancy rights and invested the same in a house, claiming exemption under Section 54F of the Income Tax Act. The assessing authority rejected the plea on the ground that the assessee had owned a residential house, prior to the investment, quite apart from the fact that the property purchased was a commercial one and, as such, the assessee was not eligible for the benefit of exemption under Section 54F.
3. On appeal, the first appellate authority allowed the same, accepting the contention that the house at Ramavaram belonged to the assessee in his HUF capacity purchased out of his agricultural income. Apart from this, perusing the sale deed, dated 15.09.1983, and also considering the fact that municipal tax receipts were paid as residential property, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) accepted the case of the assessee.
4. On appeal at the instance of the Revenue, the Tribunal held that the property at Ramavaram was a Hindu Undivided Family property and not individual property. The Tribunal further held that the assessing authority had blindly drawn an inference that it was an individual property. As to the character of the property purchased, the Tribunal held that the CIT (Appeals) had noted that the property in question was a residential property as per the municipal assessment records and, further, the assessee had taken loan of Rs.40.00 lakhs from Park Town Benefit Fund Ltd., by mortgaging the said property, for renovation of the property and the assessee used the property for residential purpose only. Under the circumstances, the Tribunal confirmed the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).
5. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue, however, could not controvert the said finding, by placing any material to say that the Tribunal had no material to come to the above said conclusion.
6. In the absence of any illegality shown in the findings of the Tribunal, we do not find any ground for admitting this appeal.
7. Since there are no substantial questions of law, this appeal is dismissed, in limine. dixit
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.