2022 (11) TMI 372 - AT - Income Tax

Exemption u/s 54F - investment in two flats - Scope of word 'one residential unit' - whether Flat Numbers 604 and 904 are different residential units or it is one residential unit for the purpose of Section 54F ? - HELD THAT - In the case before us, it is an admitted fact that the assessee had purchased flats number 604 and 904. These flats were in the same building but on different floors. Different Hon ble High Courts have echoed that expression a residential house' would encompass different residential units located on the different floors of the same building. 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.

Summary

Issues:
1. Eligibility for claiming exemption u/s 54F by investing in two residential units.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for the assessment year 2014-15. The primary issue was whether the assessee was eligible to claim exemption u/s 54F by investing in two residential units, namely flat number 604 and 904. The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee had invested in two residential units, which led to a dispute regarding the interpretation of Section 54F. The Commissioner upheld the decision of the Assessing Officer based on a clarificatory amendment to Section 54F, even though it was mentioned to be effective from the subsequent assessment year.

The relevant part of Section 54F was analyzed to determine the eligibility criteria for claiming exemption. The section provides conditions for dealing with capital gains arising from the transfer of a long-term capital asset and the subsequent purchase or construction of a residential house. The key consideration was whether the cost of the new asset is less than the net consideration of the original asset, impacting the exemption under Section 45.

The case involved a crucial interpretation of whether the two flats, 604 and 904, constituted one residential unit for the purpose of Section 54F. The assessee argued that various case laws supported the claim that these flats should be considered a single residential unit. The High Courts in different cases, such as Gumanmal Jain and Navin Jolly, had previously ruled that multiple residential units in the same building could be treated as one residential unit for the purpose of claiming exemptions under Section 54F.

The judgment cited precedents from the Madras High Court and the Delhi High Court, emphasizing that the presence of multiple independent units within a residential house should not impede the allowance of deductions under Section 54/54F. In the current case, despite the flats being on different floors in the same building, it was concluded that they constituted one residential unit, aligning with the interpretations of various High Courts. Consequently, the assessee was deemed eligible for exemption u/s 54F for the assessment year 2014-15, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the assessee.