TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (3) TMI 1098
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted period of 36 months from the date of sale deed. 3. That Ld. AO has erred in rebutting agreement dt. 19.1.2013 made with Mangal Chand Kumawat - seller & developer for purchase of constructed residential house no.:784-A, Devi Nagar, Jaipur but due to non fulfilment of condition of said agreement to deliver the possession of duly construed house within a period of 10 months from date of agreement, the said transaction could not be completed, may please be declared as illegal and arbitrary in nature. Further Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the same without any cogent reasons. 4. That Ld. CIT(A) has erred in giving finding at his own that residential house no.: 784-A, Devi Nagar, Jaipur purchased vide agreement to sale dt. 13.10.2014 cannot be treated as part of house no.: 784, Devi Nagar, Jaipur whereas there is unambiguous finding in order of AO that both houses are one and common house and purchased through two documents i.e. house no.: 784 vide sale deed dt. 17.1.2013 for Rs. 61,05,450/- and house no.: 784A was purchased vide agreement to sale dt. 13.10.2014 for Rs. 75,11,000/-. It is further submitted that appellant (Mr. Jag Mohan Sharma) expired on 11.12.2014 therefor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....de by the AO mainly on two reasons that the 2nd house purchased by the assessee cannot be treated as part of the 1st house and, therefore, the ld. CIT (A) has treated both the houses as separate unit and secondly, the amount of Rs. 75,11,000/- was not deposited in the Capital Gain Account Scheme before the due date of filing the return of income. 3. Before us, the ld. A/R of the assessee has submitted that the assessee has invested the entire consideration in purchase of the house within the stipulated period of time although the deposit in the Capital Gain Account Scheme was made after the due date of filing the return of income. The ld. A/R has explained that initially the assessee has entered into an agreement for purchase of the house and, therefore, the assessee could not deposit the amount in the Capital Gain Account Scheme. However, when the said agreement was cancelled due to non-fulfillment of the condition to deliver the possession of the constructed house within a period of 10 (ten) months, then the assessee decided to purchase another house which is adjoining to the 1st house purchased by the assessee. Therefore, both these houses together constitute a residential hous....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....B which was allowed by the AO. The claim of deduction under section 54F was allowed in part by the AO to the extent of the purchase of house no. 784, Devi Nagar. However, the claim of the assessee under section 54F was denied by the AO in respect of the purchase of House No. 784A Devi Nagar vide agreement to sale dated 13.10.2014. It is apparent from the number of these two properties being 784 and 784A that these two houses are adjacent to each other and, therefore, if the family requirement of the assessee can be satisfied by purchasing of these two adjoining properties and to be used as a dwelling unit, then the deduction under section 54F cannot be denied on the ground that the assessee has made the purchases on two separate dates. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sunita Agarwal, 284 ITR 20 (Delhi), relied upon by the ld. A/R of the assessee, has held that purchase of four portions of property by four sale deeds by the assessee for the use of her own residential purposes would be considered as a single residential unit. In the case in hand, the AO has not denied this fact that both these properties are adjoining and were purchased by the assessee for his own ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the completion certificates from the municipal authority on 30.1.2004. On the basis of the above documents, the Commissioner (Appeals) concluded that the requirement of the statutory provision has been complied with by the assesses and that was reconfirmed by the Tribunal in the orders impugned." Similar view was taken by Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. K. Ramachandra Rao (supra) at page 4 as under :- "Sub-section (4) is attracted only to a case where the sale consideration is not utilized either for purchase or for construction of a residential house. It has no application to a case where the assessee invests the sale consideration derived from the transfer either in purchasing the property or constructing the residential house within the period stipulated in Section 54F(1). The proviso to Section 54F puts an embargo on the application of Section 54F to cases which are mentioned in the said proviso. That is to be eligible for the benefit under Section 54F(1) the assessee should not be owning more than one residential house other than the new asset acquired or he should not purchase any residential house other than the new asset within a period of one year a....