Karnataka High Court
Shri M B Ramesh vs The Income-Tax Officer on 4 January, 2010
Bench: D.V.Shylendra Kumar, N.Ananda
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY or JANUARY, 2o;9_ " '»
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MILJUSTICE D V SSYLENDRA
THE I-ION'BLE MR.JUS?rI'§:S_N
Income Tax Appeal N(3.D4S<'l"'£'--7:Df 2.Qo9" "
Between: ' " ' " ' "
MBRAMESH "
AGED QBOUT 63 YEARS 3.
S/O SR1 C BASAVARAJ. 'mas '
NO.222, NEE§1Hi'M'ARGz?.
SIDDARTHA N.AGARA ' '
" APPELLANT
{BY SR2' ADV.,]
THE INCOME "i1AX'OFFIC}:3_R "
WARD ;1 121, SHILPASHREE
-- . 55/1; THSHVTZSHWARADNAGAR
IvIYSO'RE¥;"370~~QO8 RESPONDENT
39ii1S"'APP'E..éi;v»--1S;F:i.ED UNDER SEC. 260--A OF I.T.ACT, 1961
'iV"}"sR¥SING OUT o.F*--DRDER DATED 19.8.2009 PASSED IN ETA
'yNo.4_3S/BNG--/2006 FOR A.Y.1997'-98, PRAYING "PO FORMULATE THE
_ _SU_BSTAN'I'IAL ~QU§+3S'1'IONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN AND ALLOW
APPEA1. AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ITAT
BANGAL-ORELIN ETA NO.418/BNG/2006 DATED 19.6.2009 IN THE
' -- V .. 4INTERE;S"1"OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
"='.""I'HIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, D V
' 1 . .$m1.DNDRA KUMAR.J., DELEVEREI) THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The appellant is an individual assessee and of return of income for the assessment claimed certain exemptions under section_H454; of 'the._l'n.cvo'rr1et_ f Tax Act, 1961 [for short 'the Act?! on profits earned out of sale of the been reinvested in a like propertytpand soiightltodyreduce the taxable income to the in terms of section 54 'V
2. While 'refused exemption under section 54 "verification of the place where the asseVs"see'~ have had the residential property assess'ii*ig' authority found only a mud structilirel of caption 'residential house', the aggrieved' assesse'e'1--_appealed to the first appellate authority. rappellate authority took the View that the in' question had already been demolished and VV..acc€pVtedlthe claim of the assesse_e that the assessee had in «Q tum sold the property in which the gains had been reinvested by some other person and that reinvested for profits etc., and therefore there b of denial of benefit under section 54}iof head 'capital gains'.
4. The revenue went in furthergyaplpheall who found that as a matter of fact "3'_i.nY structure fitting into the description house' on the property by the assessee and therefore~allovv;edl of therevenue, reversed the finding of and affirmed the order of the assessingllauth'orit'y. V
5. lFor_Msuchl_veitification, the tribunal relied upon the ;_.._Panchayat._records__ on verification, the Tribunal found _ it "indicate the structure being in place in l of the property held and sold by the assessee.
"----ll.:SHrilParthasarathi, learned counsel for the appellant - iiiassessee would submit that the tribunal was not right in M exie'i1t;_¢;he ztribxu'r1'ai"shou1d have extended the benefit
-- it "=~--'fi.ndin'g the appellate authority in its entirety. Waare unable to appreciate the submission for the reason that as to whether there was a structure on ' Abothvdsitcs or one site or whether there was no structure at taking the View that there was no residential propertyon the site sold by the assessee in respect of assessee had claimed the benefit under section"v.%d4'i.'\ for the reason that just because permanent one it cannot be; c_a11ed"-lthat residential house at all; that it factdthait 'dtheifassessec had rented out the stmetniie recieiiring rents and that was proof c_nough...o,f_ on the site in question etc.,.
7. It is also oAf"Sri":Parthasarathi. learned counsel for"the.'_appeiiantthatjithere were two adjacent sites and on one side" ~.at"1ea;;;t there was a structure put up and to und,_e1*' oifthe Act and should not have reversed the all is a finding of fact which we are afraid cannot distmfbin an appeal under section 260--A of the Act.
9. It is for this reasen, we are not_Jad:nittihg"ti§is V which is hereby dismissed.
»s sAA f?
3UDG'E .3UD9E "
AN/--