Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2006 (4) TMI 197

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s case in principle. In our view, having accepted the case of the assessee in principle, he was not justified in examining the question as to who can be considered as the members of the assessee's family and in restricting the exemption to two flats on the footing that it will meet the requirements of the assessee and his son's family. He was not justified in excluding the widowed daughter and her family who were admittedly staying with the assessee in the house, albeit in an independent portion. They are, in our view, as much part of the assessee's family as the assessee's son and his family. We therefore hold that the CIT(A) was not justified in restricting the claim u/s 54 to twoflats. He ought to have allowed the exempti .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... married son along with his family and the widowed daughter and her family was living with him, that in all there were 8 bedrooms and two living and dining rooms, both in the ground floor and second floor and another hall in the basement which was occupied by the assessee's family. He noted that the Allahabad High Court in Shiv Narain Chaudhari vs. CWT 1977 CTR (All) 149: (1977) 108 ITR 104 (All) has held that several self-occupied dwelling units which were contiguous and situated in the same compound and within the common boundary, having unity of structure, should be regarded as one residential house. He further found that a ration card had been issued to the assessee in 1996 where the names of the son, daughter-in-law and the grand d .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... truction by making additions, improvements and construction of the ground, first, second and third floors after getting the plan sanctioned from the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. The building was accordingly constructed and the assessee was to receive one part of the building which was remodelled according to his specifications with a ground floor and three upper floors. The other part of the building was to be taken by the building company. On completion of construction, the assessee sold two flats and retained three and it is not in dispute that he was using them as his residence. The AO has been criticised by Mr. Kapila, the learned counsel for the assessee, as having introduced a new concept called residential unit which is foreign to .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... uires that the residential house should be built in a particular manner, the IT authorities in our humble opinion cannot insist upon that condition. A person constructs a house according to his plans and requirements. He may have his own whims and fancies, even eccentricities in building a house. There may be compulsions. For instance, he may construct the house in such a manner that he may use the ground floor for his own residence and let out the first floor having a independent entry in order to augment his income, say, after retirement. He may build a house consisting of four bedrooms all in the ground floor (without any upper floor) in such a manner that an independent residential unit consisting of two or three bedrooms can be carved .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e widowed daughter and her family who were admittedly staying with the assessee in the house, albeit in an independent portion. They are, in our view, as much part of the assessee's family as the assessee's son and his family. We therefore hold that the CIT(A) was not justified in restricting the claim under s. 54 to two flats. He ought to have allowed the exemption as claimed by the assessee. We hold accordingly. 6. We ought to refer to an order of the Bombay Bench of the Tribunal in K.G. Vyas vs. ITO (1986) 26 TTJ (Bom) 491: (1986) 16 ITD 195 (Bom) in which a similar question arose. There the assessee sold his flat and acquired four flats in the same building-two in the first floor and one each in the second and third floors. The .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates