9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 956X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndonation of the delay, to which; the ld. Counsel for the assessee has not raised any serious objection. Consequently, since the Revenue was prevented by sufficient cause, the delay of one day in filing of the appeal stands condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. When the appeals were taken up for hearing, at the outset, by filing copy of the order of the Tribunal in the case of ITO v. Smt. B. Vathsala in I.T.A. No. 1112/Chny/2019 dated 27.12.2019 for the assessment year 2008- 09, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted with regard to the claim of 54F of the Act that similar issue raised by the Revenue was subject matter in appeal before the Tribunal and prayed that the same order may be followed in the present case. On the other hand, the ld. DR strongly supported the assessment order. 4. We have heard both the sides, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below including the case law relied upon and relevant portions of the order of the Tribunal in the case of Smt. B. Vathsala [mother of Shri B. Sundararajan, assessee] are reproduced as under: "2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed her retu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0/- was deposited in CG Scheme and the balance of Rs..18.49,40,160/- was invested in purchase of house. As per two separate purchase deeds both dated 19.03.2008 the assessee purchased the two properties one at New Door No.2, Vasan Street, T. Nagar, Chennai from Mr. Raghunathan Krishnan for a consideration of Rs.. 6,00,00,000/- and the other property at bearing New Door No.4, Vasan Street, T. Nagar Chennai from Mr. P. Mahaveer Chand Jain & Mrs. Santosh Kumari for a consideration of Rs.. 11,00,00,000/- and after including stamp duty and registration fees, the total cost for purchase of both the houses comes to Rs..18,49,40,160/- and claimed deduction under section 54F of the Act for both the properties. The Assessing Officer observed by combined reading of sub-section (1) and subsection (2) of section 54F of the Act that the assessee is eligible for claiming deduction under section 54F of the Act only for one property. Since the assessee purchased two properties on 19.03.2008 one for an amount of Rs..11,97,00,180/- and the other one for an amount of Rs..6,52,39,980/-, the claim of deduction under section 54F of the Act was restricted for only one property in which the assessee invest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 date [constructed, one residential house in India, 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,- (i) if the amount of the capital gain is greater than the cost of the residential house so purchased or constructed (hereafter in this section referred to as the new asset)], the difference between the amount of the capital gain and the cost of the new asset shall be charged under section 45 as the income of the previous year; and for the purpose of computing in respect of the new asset any capital gain arising from its transfer within a period of three years of its purchase or construction, as the case may be, the cost shall be nil; or (ii) if the amount of the capital gain is equal to or less than the cost of the new asset, the capital gain shall not be charged under section 45; and for the purpose of computing in respect of the new asset any capital gain arising from it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be included in word 'a' by inserting word "one residential house" with effect from 01.04.2015. 18. It would be of interest to refer to the Explanatory notes along with the Finance Bill by which the said amendment was incorporated in Section 54, which is quoted below for ready reference: "20.Capital gains exemption in case of investment in a residential house property 20.1. The provisions contained in sub-section (1) of Section 54 of the Income Tax Act, before its amendment by the Act, inter alia, provided that where capital gain arises from the transfer of long-term capital asset, being buildings or land appurtenant thereto, and being a residential house, and the assessee within a period of one year before or two years after the date of transfer, purchases, or within a period of three years after the date of transfer constructs, a residential house, then, the amount of capital gains to the extent invested in the new residential house is not chargeable to tax under section 45 of the Income-tax Act. 20.2. The provisions contained in sub-section(1) of section 54F of the Income-tax Act, before its amendment by Act, interalia, provided that where capital gains arises ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... our considered opinion, the difference of location of the newly purchased residential house(s) will not alter the position for interpretation of the word 'a residential house' to the effect that it may include more than one or plural residential houses, as held by Karnataka High Court, with which we respectfully agree. The location of the newly purchased houses by the same assessee viz., HUF out of sale consideration received on the sale of original capital Asset or a residential house in the given circumstances of availability of such residential houses as per the requirement of the HUF will not alter the position of interpretation. 21. In our understanding, if the word 'a' as employed under Section 54 prior to its amendment and substitution by the words 'one' with effect from 01.04.2015 could not include plural units of residential houses, there was no need to amend the said provisions by Finance Act No.2 of 2014 with effect from 01.04.2015 which the Legislature specifically made it clear to operate only prospectively from A.Y.2015- 2016. Once we can hold that the word 'a' employed can include plural residential houses also in Section 54 prior to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ised by the Revenue stands dismissed." 5. Respectfully following the above decision of the Tribunal, we find no infirmity in the appellate order, wherein, the ld. CIT(A) has held that the assessee is entitled for deduction under section 54F of the Act. Thus, the ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 6. The only effective ground raised in the appeal of the assessee relates to confirmation of cost of acquisition being the fair market value as on 01.04.1981 at Rs..75,000/- as against the claim made by the assessee at Rs..14 lakhs in the recomputation of long term capital gains. The assessee has adopted the fair market value of the property at Rs..14 lakhs on estimation basis. However, the Assessing Officer estimated and adopted the FMV at Rs..75,000/-. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the assessment order. 6.1 On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. By filing the decision in the case of CIT v. J. Chelladurai (2012) 204 Taxman 258, the ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed for following the method adopted by the Hon'ble High Court for fixing the market value of the property. Per contra, the ld. DR has submitted the property is located within the city ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
