TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 1332X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... G. Pavan Kumar (Judicial Member) The appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-12, Chennai in ITA No.10/2012-13/CIT(A)-12, dt 18.12.2015 for the assessment year 20122013 passed u/s.143(3) and 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (herein after referred to as the Act ). 2. The Revenue has raised the following grounds:- 2.1 The learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of claim u/s 54F by holding the assessee is eligible for the said claim even if the investment is made in more than one residential unit as the same is situating in the same door number relying on the decision of Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. V.R.Karpagam (2014) 50 Taxmann.com 55 (Mad.). 2.2 The learned CIT(A) ought to have seen the fact the assessee has invested in flats situating in different blocks which are separate from each other and the CIT(A) ought to have invoked the provisions of section 54F(2) of the Income Tax Act. 2.3 The learned CIT(A) failed to note the fact that even though the residential units are situating in the same door number, the units are having separate kitchen, electricity connection and prop ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... V.R. Karpagam 50 Taxmann.com 55 (Mad) as applicable to the fact of the assessee s case but on principle the decision was not accepted by the Revenue. Since the issue has not attained finality in the higher forum, the ld. Assessing Officer has deferred the ratio descend of jurisdictional High Court decision and denied exemption claimed by the assessee with other disallowances and assessed the income and raised remand. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee filed an appeal before Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 4. In the appellate proceedings, the ld. Authorised Representative of assessee argued the grounds with supporting judicial decisions and demonstrated the residual clauses of development agreement and supplementary agreement dated 03.05.2011 and emphasized on the provisions of Sec. 54 and 54F of the Act were the assessee was allowed exemption u/s.54F of the Act on investment in residential house and filed written submissions alongwith extracts of the joint development agreements. The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) based on the material evidence and subjective findings of the Assessing Officer made a exhaustive observation in the order referred at page No. 9 to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... C 3360 1 FOURTH B 1120 2 C 3355 27012 S.'NO FLOOR FLAT BUILT UP TOTAL ALLOTTED 1 THIRD B 1122 DEEPAK JAIN 1 FOURTH A 3855. 2 B 1120 6097 S.NO FLOOR FLAT BUILT UP' TOTAL ALLOTTED 1 THIR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s invested long term capital gains in more than one residential flat in the same block as per joint development agreement which is not in accordance with the provisions of law and prayed for set aside the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 6. Contra, the ld. Authorised Representative relied on the findings of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and supported his arguments with jurisdictional High Court decisions and prayed for dismissing the appeal. 7. We heard the rival submissions, perused the material on record and judicial decisions. The ld. Departmental Representative main contention that assessee is not eligible for exemption u/s. 54F of the Act due to investment in more than one residential property in the same block. The fact that the assessee has entered into development agreement alongwith his sons with builder on certain terms and conditions as per agreements and considering the ratio of sharing of areas between both the parties the assessee was allotted flate alongwith his sons in the same block of building on different floors. The assessee complied the conditions for claim of exemption u/sec. 54 of the Act by investment in more than one residenti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
