TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 1016X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ased by the assessee having separate entrance and the same being incapable of joining together could not be treated as one residential house for claiming exemption under section 54F. As rightly contended by the assessee, this issue also now stands covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs- Smt. K. G. Rukminiamma [ 2010 (8) TMI 482 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] and CIT vs. - Syed Ali Adil [ 2013 (6) TMI 278 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] wherein it was held that the expression a residential house used in section 54 necessarily has to include buildings or land appurtenant thereto and it cannot be construed as one residential house. As further held in the said judicial pronouncements, section 54 only requires that property purchased by the assessee out of sale proceeds should be of residential nature and the fact that residential house consisted of several independent units could not be an impediment for granting relief under the said section, even if such independent units were situated side by side on different floors and were purchased under separate sale deeds. Keeping in view the legal position emanating from th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of ₹ 1, 10, 00, 000/- was determined by the Registering Authority at ₹ 1, 16, 98, 750/-. He also found that two separate f lats were purchased by the assessee and that too after the stipulated period of two years. When the assessee was confronted by the Assessing Of f icer with these adverse f indings and she was asked to explain as to why her claim for exempt ion under section 54F should not be disal lowed, it was submit ted by the assessee that the entire amount towards purchase of f lats was paid by her within the st ipulated period of two years and since the requirement of section 54F for investing the amount of capital gain was sat isf ied, the purchase of the f lat beyond of period of two years was not relevant. I t was also submitted by the assessee that the two units of f lats purchased by her on the same f loor of the bui lding were adjacent to each other and the same were capable of being used as one residence. These submissions made by the assessee were not found acceptable by the Assessing Of f icer. He held that the assessee having not purchased the new f lat within the period of two years as prescribed in section 54F was not ent itled for exemption under s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of a number of judicial pronouncement s in support of hi s submission . In CIT v . Sardarmal Kothari (2008) 302 ITR 286 (Mad) , i t was held that the as ses see, in order to get the benef i t under sect ion 54F, need not complete the construct ion of the house and occupy i t and i t was enough i f the asses see establ ished the investment of the ent ire net considerat ion wi thin st ipulated period . Secondly, the A . O . contended that the appel lant has purchased two di f ferent f lats for which agreements were executed and cont iguous uni ts cannot be treated as one resident ial house for claiming benef i ts under sect ion 54F . The Ld . A/R of the appel lant made submis sion that 'a resident ial house' in the statute should not be understood to indicate a singular number and the word 'a' was subst i tuted by 'one' by the Finance Act 2015, which is ef fect ive from 01/04/2015 . The Ld . A/R also ci ted various case laws in which Hon'ble Courts and Tribunals made pronouncements in favour of the as ses see . The undersigned is incl ined to fol low the rul ings of Hon'ble High Courts and Tribunals and in view of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the decision of the Special Bench of ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Sushi la M. Jhaveri (supra), the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that this issue now stands covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs- Smt. K. G. Rukminiamma [331 ITR 211] and that of the Hon ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT vs. - Syed Al i Adi l [352 ITR 418], wherein it was held that the expression a resident ial house used in section 54 necessari ly has to include bui ldings or land appurtenant thereto and it cannot be construed as one residential house. I t was also held that section 54 only requires that property purchased by the assessee out of sale proceeds should be of residential nature and the fact that residential house consisted of several independent uni ts could not be an impediment for granting rel ief under the said section, even i f such independent units were situated side by side on di f ferent f loors and were purchased under separate sale deeds. 6. We have considered the rival submissions and also perused the relevant material avai lable on record. It is observed that the claim of the assessee for exemp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Syed Al i Adi l (supra), wherein it was held that the expression a resident ial house used in section 54 necessari ly has to include bui ldings or land appurtenant thereto and it cannot be construed as one residential house. As further held in the said judicial pronouncements, section 54 only requires that property purchased by the assessee out of sale proceeds should be of residential nature and the fact that residential house consisted of several independent units could not be an impediment for granting rel ief under the said section, even i f such independent units were si tuated side by side on di f ferent f loors and were purchased under separate sale deeds. Keeping in view the legal position emanating from these judicial pronouncements, we are of the view that the assessee is entitled for exemption under section 54F and the ld. CIT(Appeals) is ful ly justi f ied in al lowing the claim of the assessee for such exempt ion. The impugned order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) giving rel ief to the assessee on this issue is accordingly upheld and this appeal f i led by the Revenue is dismissed. 8 . In the result , the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed . Order pronounce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
