I.T.A No. 479 of 2008 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH I.T.A No. 479 of 2008 Date of decision : August 26, 2008 Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh-II ...... Appellant through Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Advocate v. Shri Sanjay Sachdeva, ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J This is an appeal by the revenue on the following question of law :- “Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ITAT was justified in allowing exemption under section 10(13A) of the Act in respect of two accommodations whereas `residential accommodation' and `rent' as mentioned in section 10(13A) have been used as a `singular' and not as `plural' which could have meant any number of accommodations.” The assessee claimed HRA deduction under Section 10(13A) of I.T.A No. 479 of 2008 ::2:: the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) in respect of two houses, hired by him i.e one at Delhi amounting to Rs.1.80 lac, and the other at Jalandhar amounting to Rs.1.08 lac on the ground that even though he was posted at Jalandhar yet he had to frequently visit Delhi in the course of his duties and no official accommodation was provided to him at either of the two places. The Assessing Officer disallowed the amount of Rs.1.80 lac in respect of the rent paid for the accommodation occupied by the assessee at Delhi since, as per the Assessing Officer, the assessee was posted at Jalandhar. The appeal, filed by the assessee, before the Commissioner of Income Tax(A), Chandigarh was allowed on the ground that there is no mention in Section 10(13A) of the Act that rent for only one house can be claimed and that the only requirement was occupation of the house by the assessee. The revenue filed an appeal before the ITAT, Chandigarh Bench- (A). The Tribunal dismissed the appeal by holding as follows :- “..... However, without going into much deliberation and restricting ourselves to the question before us and the language of this impugned section, it can be said that the only requirement as per section is of occupation of house, therefore, the occupation of Delhi house is a constructive possession specially in the light of the fact that it was a rented accommodation and rent was actually paid by the assessee, therefore, the assessee is entitled to the allowance which is permissible as per HRA given by the employer....” I.T.A No. 479 of 2008 ::3:: In our opinion, the question whether the assessee actually occupied two houses is one of fact and that the words `residential accommodation' and `rent' have not been used in the `singular' sense. It is not correct to hold, as contended by learned counsel for the revenue, that if the order of the Tribunal is accepted, it would necessarily lead to an interpretation that an individual can occupy any number of accommodations. In our considered view, every case would have to be decided on its own merit and it would always have to be incumbent on the assessee to prove as a fact that he actually occupied any additional house in the exigencies of his circumstances. Thus, the question posed by the appeal is answered against the revenue and consequently, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. ( AJAY TEWARI ) JUDGE ( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ) JUDGE August 26, 2008 'kk'