TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 372X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Respectfully following it is held that Flat Number 604 and 904 constitute one residential unit for the purpose of Section 54F for AY 2014-15 and hence assessee has fulfilled the conditions of eligibility for claiming exemption u/s.54F for the year. Therefore, it is held that the assessee is eligible for exemption u/s 54F - Appeal of the Assessee is Allowed. - ITA No.1881/PUN/2019 - - - Dated:- 18-10-2022 - Shri S.S.Godara, Judicial Member And Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Shri Nikhil Pathak AR For the Revenue : Shri M.G.Jasnani DR ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: This appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-8, Pune, d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Y 2014-15 also, though it is mentioned that the amendment is w.e.f. AY 2015-16. Therefore, the Ld.CIT(A) upheld the decision of the Assessing Officer(AO). 3. Thus the only issue for consideration is whether the assessee was eligible to claim exemption u/s54F by investing in two Flats Numbers 604 and 904. 4. Relevant part of the Section 54F is reproduced here under : 54F. (1) [Subject to the provisions of sub-section (4), where, in the case of an assessee being an individual or a Hindu undivided family], the capital gain arises from the transfer of any long-term capital asset, not being a residential house (hereafter in this section referred to as the original asset), and the assessee has, within a period of one year before or [two ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... head Income from house property .] 5. In this case it is an admitted fact that the assessee had purchased Flat Number 604 and 904 in the same building. The AO held that these are different residential units. Thus, the question we have to decide is whether Flat Numbers 604 and 904 are different residential units or it is one residential unit for the purpose of Section 54F of the Act. The Ld.AR relied on various case laws to claim that these are one single residential unit. The Ld.DR relied on the order of the lower authorities. 6. The Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of Gumanmal Jain 394 ITR 666 (Madras) held as under : Quote , 7.CONCLUSION: (i) We therefore have no hesitation in holding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are in the same address/location even if they are located in separate blocks or towers it does not alter the position. In the instant case, after all, all the flats are a product of one development agreement of the same piece of land being said land. Therefore, we make it abundantly clear that even if flats/apartments are in different blocks and different towers as long as they are in same address/location it does not disentitle the assessee from getting the benefit of Section 54-F of IT Act. (v) Therefore, the sole and sheet anchor submission of counsel for Revenue that the 15 flats in the instant case are located in the different blocks does not impress us. We are unable to persuade ourselves that thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to act as impediment to allowance of exemption under section 54F(1) of the Act. Similar view was taken by Delhi High Court in case of Geeta Duggal wherein the issue whether a residential house which consists of several independent residential units would be entitled to exemption under section 54F(1) of the Act was dealt with and the same was answered in the affirmative. The appeal against the aforesaid decision was dismissed by the Supreme Court by an order reported in (2014) 52 taxmann.com 246 (SC). We agree with the view taken by Delhi High Court. Unquote. 8. The Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gita Duggal, 30 taxmann.com 230 held as under : Quote , We do not think that the fact that the residential house consist ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
