9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (12) TMI 100X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act'). The sum and substance of all the grounds raised is that the assessee should have been granted exemption under section 5(1)(iv) of the Act in respect of his half share in respect of two properties situated in Madhopuri being House Nos. B-VI-130 and B-VI-100. 2. The facts in the background of the issue are in short compass. The assessee owned half share in each of the two Houses B-VI-130 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rent localities. 4. While disputing this action of the AAC, the learned counsel for the assessee Mr. Mohan Lal submitted that it is incorrect to say that the two properties are situated in different localities. Actually, both the properties are situated in Madhopuri. However, one of the opening is in kucha No. 1 whereas the other is in kucha No. 2. He, however, submitted that the two properties w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... After taking into consideration the rival submissions, we are unable to confirm the action of the AAC. There is no dispute about the fact that the two properties, though acquired separately in which the assessee held one half share each, were annexed wall to wall and have common courtyard and rooms which indicated that the property is one and the same. There is also no dispute about the fact that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the case that the two portions of the property were acquired differently at two stages by the assessee and other co-owners, being a property having common courtyard and common walls and unity of structure, simply because it came to acquire two municipal numbers and the two openings being in kucha Nos. 1 and 2 would not two residential houses for the purposes of exemption. The assessee, therefor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
