JUDGMENT
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.
1. At the instance of the Department, the following question of law is referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for our consideration :
“Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to exemption under section 10(13A) of the Income-tax Act ?”
2. The assessee has been served on May 18, 1992, and there is no representation on behalf of the assessee.
3. The assessment year involved is 1982-83. The assessee is assessed in the status of an individual. The assessee during the course of the previous assessment year 1982-83 received a sum of Rs. 9,000 as house rent allowance from Shri Ramakrishna Mills (CBE) Limited. The assessee claimed that the house rent allowance received is exempt from tax. The Income-tax Officer negatived the claim of the assessee on the ground that the assessee had not incurred any expenditure by way of rent, as he was residing in a house belonging to the Hindu undivided family, in which the assessee is a member and no rent was paid by him to the family. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, following the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v. Justice S. C. Mittal [1980] 121 ITR 503 accepted the claim of the assessee and held that the assessee was entitled to exemption. The Tribunal on appeal by the Revenue, following the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, cited supra, held that the assessee is entitled to the deduction under section 10(13A) of the Income-tax Act. The decision of the Tribunal was rendered on December 17, 1983. An Explanation was introduced by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1984, with retrospective effect from April 1, 1976, which expressly provides that the provisions of section 10(13A) of the Act would not apply in a case where the residential accommodation was occupied by the assessee which is owned by him or the assessee has not incurred expenditure on payment of rent in respect of residential accommodation occupied by him. We have seen that the assessment year 1982-83 and by virtue of the retrospective amendment made by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1984, the Explanation to section 10(13A) of the Act is applicable to the facts of the case. Since the assessee has occupied the residential accommodation belonging to the Hindu undivided family and has not incurred any expenditure towards the rent, the assessee is not entitled to claim the exemption provided under section 10(13A) of the Act.
4. In this connection it is relevant to notice that the Explanation introduced to section 10(13A) of the Act has neutralised the effect of the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Justice S. C. Mittal’s case [1980] 121 ITR 503. That apart, the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court has been dissented from uniformly by the Delhi, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh as well as the Rajasthan High Courts in All India Lakshmi Commercial Bank Officer’s Union v. Union of India ; Patil Vijaykumar v. Union of India [1985] 151 ITR 48 (Kar); Krishna Murthy (M.) v. CIT and CIT v. Rajeshwar Prasad , respectively.
5. We are of the view that in any case, the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, in Justice S. C. Mittal’s case [1980] 121 ITR 503 has been superseded by the legislative amendment with retrospective effect. We are, therefore, of the view that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was not justified in holding that the house rent allowance received by the assessee occupying the house belonging to the Hindu undivided family and not actually paying any rent is exempt under section 10(13A) of the Act. Accordingly, we answer the question referred to us in the negative and in favour of the Department. However, there will be no order as to costs.