Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2019 (3) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (3) TMI 1124 - HC - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 by CIT - possible view - Benefit of exemption u/s 54F - LTCG - investment in two residential flats - whether subject flats form a single residential unit? - arriving at possible view - HELD THAT:- Tribunal had, after discussing three aspects namely, whether the subject flats formed one single residential unit and with respect to the claim of the respondent that he had invested in the Capital Gains Account Scheme, and the further claim of the respondent that he had invested money in the Alibaug property had confined the remand only to the last two aspects. The claim under Section 54F was not remanded for re-consideration as it had already been considered for AY 2008-2009. This is evident from perusing paragraph 12 of the Tribunal's order. Consequently, the Tribunal did not entertain the appeal of the Revenue, with respect to the challenge relating to the flats and the claim for deduction under Section 54F. The learned Single Judge also correctly held that the view taken by the Assessing Officer in the order dated 31.03.2014, was a “possible view” and therefore cannot be categorized as a erroneous view. In the present case, the Assessing Officer in the order dated 31.03.2014, had only, as rightly pointed out by the learned Single Judge taken a “possible view” and this cannot be projected or categorized as an erroneous view. The learned Single Judge had observed that the respondent was unnecessarily burdened by the fact that the subject flats were purchased by two separate sale deeds and had separate electricity meter connections. The issue at hand, before the Assessing Officer, in my opinion, was whether or not the subject flats form a single residential unit. It must be emphasised that in reaching such conclusion the Assessing Officer not only had the benefit of examining the survey report, but also all other connected documents, particularly, the materials provided by the Housing Society. The documents convincingly point to the fact that flats Nos.607 and 612 were conjoined into one single residential unit. In view of the reasons stated above, we find no reason to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. The issues raised on facts have been finally decided. A “possible view” had been arrived at stating that there was only one single residential unit. The appellant herein had not provided any additional material for us to hold a contrary view to the view held by the learned Single Judge. - Decided against revenue
|