TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 132X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e in same physical location and contiguous to each other. We are inclined to agree with the above observations and findings of the Ld. CIT(A). - Decided against revenue. - ITA No. 8339/Del/2018 - - - Dated:- 1-8-2022 - Shri Shamim Yahya, Accountant Member And Ms. Astha Chandra, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Shri S. Deora, Advocate For the Department : Ms. Anupama Singla, Sr. DR ORDER PER ASTHA CHANDRA The appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 30.10.2018 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-42, New Delhi [ CIT(A) ] pertaining to the Assessment Year ( AY ) 2013-14. 2. The Revenue has taking the following grounds of appeal:- 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing deduction u/s 54 of the IT Act amounting to Rs. 3,55,40,000/-. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the expression a house mentioned in section 54 of the IT Act 1961, may mean several contiguous houses. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that in the present case the assessee had purchased three independent residential plots and had constructed three independent houses each having all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mounted to Rs.3,14,78,037/- resulting in addition of Rs. 3,55,40,000/- to the income of the assessee. 4. The assesee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who gave relief to the assessee by holding that the assessee s claim of deduction under section 54 is justified. He recorded his findings as under:- 6.2 It is evident from the extracts of CIT(A) order as re-produced above that the crux of the matter is that whether the appellant is allowed deduction u/s 54 of the act particularly where the AO observed that 3 plots were purchased separately through 3 separate registered purchase deeds and three separate buildings plans were approved. The AO restricted the deduction claimed u/s 54 of the Act to only single house on the ground that the provisions of Section 54 allow the deduction only in respect of investment in one residential house. The assessee produced photographs of the considered houses during the appellate proceedings, against the first round of the assessment, which clearly show that there are 3 similar units in a single compound wall and the remand report was called from the AO to comment on the new facts ascertained during appellate proceedings vide le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vide order dated 27.08.2010 which has become final as the SLP filed by the Revenue stands dismissed by the Supreme Court. The Ld. AR also relied upon the following decisions of Delhi Bench of the Tribunal:- (i) Smt. Chandra Khanna vs. ACIT (ITA No. 6189/Del/2016 dated 03.02.2020) (ii) Sanjiv Ahuja vs. ITO (International Taxation) (ITA No. 977/Del/2017 dated 03.03.2021) (iii) Saroj Arora vs. ITO (ITA No. 7557/Del/2017 dated 13.01.2022) 5.2 In rebuttal of Ld. AO s reliance on the amendment in Section 54(1) introduced by the Finance Act, 2014 the Ld. AR derived support from the decision of Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of M/s. Tilokchand Sons. vs. ITO, Madurai in T.C.(A) No. 771 of 2009 dated 14.03.2019. 6. We have considered the rival submissions of the parties, perused the orders of the Ld. AO/CIT(A) as also the material available in the records. The case of the assessee all along has been that he sold his house in Delhi which was falling short of his needs and constructed a house on three separate plots adjoining each other to enable him to have a house for himself which could accommodate all his family members and families of his children. The intention of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... herefore, unable to see how or why the physical structuring of the new residential house, whether it is lateral or vertical, should come in the way of considering the building as a residential house. We do not think that the fact that, the residential house consists of several independent units can be permitted to act as an impediment to the allowance of the deduction under Section 54/54F. It is neither expressly nor by necessary implication prohibited. 6.2 The Delhi High Court has recognised that a person may construct a house according to his plans, requirements and compulsions. He may even arrange for his children and family to stay there, so that they are nearby, an arrangement which can be mutually supportive. The Hon ble Delhi High Court went on to observe further that physical structuring of the new residential house, whether it is lateral or vertical cannot come in the way of considering the building as a residential house. 6.3 The assessee before us constructed the residential house which consisted of three independent units and as per the decision of Hon ble Delhi High Court such a residential house cannot be permitted to act as an impediment to the allowance of d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
