9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (8) TMI 477X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see was held to be eligible for claiming of exemption under section 54F of the Act - Following decision of CIT v. Smt. K.G. Rukminiamma [2010 (8) TMI 482 - Karnataka High Court] and Dr. Smt. P.K. Vasanthi Rangarajan v. CIT [2012 (7) TMI 563 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] - assessee was eligible for claiming exemption under section 54F of the Act on the five flats received by her in lieu of the land she had parted with. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No.1082/Mds./2010 - - - Dated:- 7-3-2013 - ABRAHAM P GEORGE AND S.S.GODARA , JJ. For the Appellant : R. Vijayaraghavan. For the Respondent : Anrirudh Rai. ORDER:- PER : Abraham P. George In this appeal filed by the assessee, it has raised two grievances through its six ground ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of Rs. 1,09,75,620/- considered by the assessee with Rs. 1,54,85,801/-. Further, Assessing Officer restricted the claim of exemption under section 54F of the Act to one flat and the value of such one flat was fixed considering its area. 3. Assessee moved in appeal before the CIT(A). In so far as the question of sale consideration was concerned, Ld. CIT(A) held that Assessing Officer was justified in taking the cost of construction provided by M/s. Mount Housing and Infrastructure Ltd. However, he was of the opinion that assessee being entitled only to 43.75% of the constructed area in lieu of 56.25% of the land transferred, sale consideration could only be taken as 43.75% of the cost of Rs. 2,75,30,313/-. In other words against Rs. 1,54 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relied on the decision of jurisdictional High Court in the case of Dr. Smt. P.K. Vasanthi Rangarajan v. CIT [2012] 75 DTR 56. According to him, in the said case a similar claim under section 54F was originally declined by the Assessing Officer on the very same reason as given here in assessee's case. However their Lordships following an earlier decision in the case of CIT v. G. Saroja (TCA No.656 of 2005 dated 04.01.12) had held that there was no inhibition in the assessee claiming benefit of investments made in four flats for giving benefits under section 54F of the Act. According to him, the facts here were pari materia with the case before the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court. Therefore, assessee was entitled to claim exemption under se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... "7.2 We therefore, examine as to whether 'a residential house' should be treated as 'one residential house' or whether 'more than one residential house' can be considered eligible for deduction under section 54. Reading the provisions of s.54 it can be held that there is no bar like s.54F deduction for more than one residential house." However, we have to keep in mind that Tribunal was considering a claim of exemption under section 54 and not one under section 54F. Therefore, in our opinion, its observation regarding Sec.54F cannot be considered as a finding, which will render it, not one, which is res integra. 7. A look at Sec.54F is necessary at this juncture. The said section is reproduced hereunder:- "Sec. 54F. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of one year after the date of transfer of the original asset; or (iii) constructs any residential house, other than the new asset, within a period of three years after the date of transfer of the original asset; and (b) the income from such residential house, other than the one residential house owned on the date of transfer of the original asset, is chargeable under the head "Income from house property" The proviso which disables the assessee from claiming exemption under section 54F mentions at clause (i) that assessee concerned should not own more than one residential house, other than the new asset. Other clauses also restrict a claim under section 54F, if an assessee purchased a house or constructed any reside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rued as meaning 'singular". But being an indefinite article, the said expression should be read in consonance with the other words 'buildings and lands' and therefore, the singular 'a residential house' also permits use of plural by virtue of Sec.13(2) of the General Clauses Act. This is the view which is taken by this court in the aforesaid Anand Basappa's case in ITA No.113/2004 , disposed of on September 20, 2008 [2009] 309 ITR 329 (Kar.)" 8. Their Lordships has clearly held in the above judgement that 'a residential house' in the context could not be construed as a singular. In the said case also, claim for exemption was with regard to four flats in lieu of share in land, but the claim was under section 54 of the Act and not under sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
