TMI Blog2009 (8) TMI 825X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has observed that while claiming exemption under section 54, the property though purchased from two different persons by virtue of four different .sale instances in the shape of four different parcels, constitutes one single residential unit of the assessee, property purchased by the assessee was a single unit and was being used for residential purposes, therefore investment made in respect of both the plots was eligible for claim of exemption under section 54F, appeal of the revenue is dismissed whereas cross-objection filed by the assessee is allowed. - IT APPEAL NO. 1624(DELHI)2009 CROSS OBJECTION NO. 157(DELHI)2009 - - - Dated:- 31-8-2009 - RAJPAL YADAV, R.C. SHARMA, JJ. Manish Gupta for the Appellant. Sanjay Malik for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... constructed on the first plot. The Assessing Officer held that consideration invested in the purchase of the second plot is not entitled to exemption under section 54F, he restricted the exemption to the extent of amount invested in purchase of first plot. The Assessing Officer observed that deduction under section 54F is provided only if investment is in respect of a residential house and not for an empty plot. The Assessing Officer further stated that the assessee has submitted the design of the house intended to be built on the first plot, along with the return. The Assessing Officer inspected the house on 30-1-2008 and found that assessee was constructing his house on first plot and second plot was still vacant. The Assessing Officer fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se of CIT v. Zaibunnisa Begam [1985] 151 ITR 3201 wherein words land appurtenant thereto under section 54 have been dealt with and it was held that the extent of land appurtenant should be determined to the enjoyment of the building by the occupiers and to the extent of land used for other purposes should not be taken into account for determination of exemption for capital gains under section 54. It was further held that the meaning of the expression land appurtenant in section 54 of the Act, should be construed in a broad and non-technical sense and the meaning given to that expression in other Acts should be irrelevant. In terms of this decision, learned DR argued that the matter may be restored to the tax authorities to enquire int ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m house property (hereafter in this section referred to as the original asset), and the assessee has within a period of [one year before or two years after the date on which the transfer took place purchased], or has within a period of three years after that dale constructed, a residential house, then, instead of the capital gain being charged to income-tax as income of the previous year in which the transfer took place, it shall be dealt with in accordance with the following provisions of this section, that is to say. . . . 9. Provisions of section 54F which deal with provisions of Capital gain on transfer of certain capital assets not to be charged in case of investment in residential house, read as under :- 54F. (1) [Subject to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in appurtenant land as per sections 54 and 54F is not tenable at all. In the instant case, there is no dispute to the fact that investment of capital gains was made within the statutory period and moreover within the same financial year. Another plot of land which was purchased by the assessee was adjacent to the plot already purchased during the relevant year itself out of capital gains. Only because construction was made on the first plot of land, the exemption claimed in respect of investment made in adjacent plot of land cannot be declined when all the other conditions as stipulated under section 54F are being satisfied. While dealing with the objection of the Assessing Officer, the CIT(A) has categorically given a finding that the lan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... law cited by the learned DR in the case of Zaibunnisa Begam (supra) is entirely on different facts insofar as the appurtenant land was not used by the assessee for any other purposes. On the contrary, the expression land appurtenant in section 54 of the Act was held to be construed in a broad and non-technical sense and it was held that the meaning given to that expression in other Acts should be irrelevant. The Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Sunita Aggarwal (supra) has observed that while claiming exemption under section 54, the property though purchased from two different persons by virtue of four different .sale instances in the shape of four different parcels, constitutes one single residential unit of the assessee. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
