TMI Blog2020 (7) TMI 218X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... admitted fact that assessee has purchased residential flat at Noida within the permitted time period from the sale of the residential flats. See DCIT vs., Shri Ranjit Vithaldas [2012 (7) TMI 586 - ITAT MUMBAI] - Thus assessee is entitled for exemption under section 54 - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA.No.4210/Del./2019 - - - Dated:- 7-7-2020 - Shri Bhavnesh Saini, Judicial Member For the Assessee : ShriAvineesh Mitta, C.A. For the Revenue : Shri R.K. Gupta, Sr. D.R. ORDER This appeal by the Assessee has been directed against the Order of the Ld. CIT(A)-1, Noida, Dated 29.11.2018, for the A.Y. 2009-2010. 2. I have heard the Learned Representative of both the parties through video conferencing and perused t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... investment in residential value was not found allowable under section 54 of the I.T. Act. The A.O. was of the view that Section 54 makes it clear that the said Section speaks of exemption in respect sale of a residential house and purchase of a residential house . As per the provisions of the said Section there is no restriction on sale of any number of houses, but, there must be purchase of a corresponding house on which exemption under section 54 could be taken. The A.O. further noted that there must be a set of sale and purchase of one residential house to claim exemption under section 54 of the I.T. Act. The A.O, therefore, held that the amount of capital gains in respect of sale of one property can be treated exempt against purchase o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TAT, Mumbai A-Bench, Mumbai in ITA.No.7443/Mum./2002 Dated 22.06.2012 in the case of DCIT vs., Shri Ranjit Vithaldas. 6. On the other hand, Ld. D.R. relied upon the Orders of the authorities below. 7. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The ITAT, Mumbai A-Bench, Mumbai in the case of DCIT vs., Shri Ranjit Vithaldas in ITA.No.7443/Mum./2002 vide Order Dated 22.06.2012 held as under : 10. Having held that the two flats were two different residential houses, it is required to be examined whether the assessee is entitled for exemption u/s 54 of the Act in respect of the sale of more than one residential houses. We see no restriction placed in section 54 that exemption is allowable only in respe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sale of more than one residential house, is invested in one residential house. The Id. counsel appearing for the assessee argued that there was no restriction under section 54 that capital gain arising from two residential houses cannot be invested in one residential house. We find substance in the argument advanced by the Id. counsel for the assessee. No rulings have been brought on record by the Id. DR to show that the capital gain arising from sale of more than one residential houses cannot be invested in one residential house. The provisions of section 54 as pointed out earlier apply to transfer of any number of residential houses by the assessee provided the capital gain arising therefrom is invested in a residential house. The exempti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his conclusion based on the ground that the assessee had not returned any income from Vishnu Vila Flat. The AO had treated the Ramkrishna Sadan flat as self occupied property and, therefore, in his opinion, the income from Vishnu Vila property could be exempt from house property only if the same was used for business as only one flat could be treated as self occupied property. The CIT(A) has not accepted the finding given by the AO and we agree with the view taken by CIT(A). The assessee had shown no income from Vishnu Vila flat because the assessee had treated both the flats as one residential house which had been used as a self acquired property. Therefore, only on the ground that the assessee had not shown any income from the Vishnu Vil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arned CIT(A) erred in holding that the assessee is entitled for relief of ₹ 21,30,127/- u/s. 54 of the Income Tax Act 1961. ii) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred and failed to appreciate that the assessee purchased four separate flats by separate agreements and sold by a single agreement and is therefore ineligible for exemption u/s. 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. iii) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that in similar facts of the case the Hon'ble IT AT, Mumbai Bench in the case of Dr. P. S. Pashricha (20 SOT 468) has held otherwise. The judgment has been subsequently affirmed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
