Case Law Details
Requirement of the section 10(13A) is that any allowance (by whatever name called) granted to an assessee by his employer to meet expenditure actually incurred on payment of rent in respect of residential accommodation occupied by the assessee, to such extent as may be prescribed.
However, the exemption is not available in case the residential accommodation occupied by the assessee is owned by him or the assessee has not actually incurred expenditure on payment of rent (by whatever name called) in respect of the residential accommodation occupied by him.
Admittedly, the AO has given a finding of fact that the assessee and his wife are living together as a family. Therefore, it can be inferred that the house owned by wife of the assessee is occupied by the assessee also and in remand report it has been submitted that the assessee has submitted the rent receipt(s) of Rs.15,000/- dated 3.7.2008 and Rs.1,65,000/- dated 31.3.2009 and stated that the payments have duly been paid through bank transfer entry. A verification of the said entry shows the transfer on the given dates but the receipts date and amount of Rs.1,65,000/- not reflecting as transfer.
Therefore, in our considered opinion, the assessee has fulfilled twin requirements of the provision, i.e. occupation of the house and the payment of rent. Under these circumstances, the assessee is entitled for exemption u/s.10(13A) of the Act. Since we have observed that the ld.CIT(A)’s chose not to make enhancement and disallow the relief u/s.24 of the Act, therefore we cannot comment upon this aspect of the matter. In this view of the matter, we delete the addition and direct the AO to allow exemption u/s.10(13A) of the Act to the assessee. This ground is also allowed as indicated above.
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AHMEDABAD
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Impromptu (clarifying own thoughts/view):
None, without offending own intelligence or intellect, can dispute that even though a female, after wedded to a male, becomes the better-half but they still in the eyes of law continue to be ‘individuals’, for all prectical purposes; particuarly, for tax purposes.
Be that as it should,so long as it is not regarded and proved to be a ‘colorable’ (or wantonly ‘colored’) device, and the house property in question actually and factually ‘belongs’ (within its legal meaning) to the wife,rent paid, simply because payment is to own spouse, cannot be meted out with a disallowance.