9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 188X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Act. Incoming to this finding, we draw support from the decision of the co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of M.A. Patel (2012 (9) TMI 360 - ITAT, BANGALORE) which has been followed by another co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of Dr. R. Balaji (2015 (2) TMI 149 - ITAT BANGALORE) relied on by the learned Authorised Representative wherein on similar facts the Tribunal held that the assessee would be entitled to exemption under section 54 of the Act. Following the aforesaid decision of the co-ordinate benches of this Tribunal (supra), we direct the Assessing Officer to allow the assessee exemption claimed under section 54 of the Act. - Decided in favour of assessee. - I.T.A. No. 914/Bang/2013 - - - Dated:- 31-7-201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order of Assessing Officer in the manner in which he did. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (Appeals) ought to have appreciated the fact that the location of the residential house constructed by the appellant was in a village away form Bangalore City and construction was made keeping in mind the location being away from City and being a remote village. 3. The learned CIT (Appeals) ought to have appreciated the fact that it was the appellant s son who was looking after the construction on account of the appellant being an aged person and therefore he should have examined the appellant s son instead of recording the statement of the appellant. 4. The learned CIT (Appeals) ought to have appreciated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ying the assessee's claim for exemption under section 54 of the Act. 6.2.1 As per the facts that emerge from the record, the assessee, in the period relevant to Assessment Year 2007-08, had sold two immovable properties; (i) at Vishveshwaraiah Layout, Bangalore which was acquired by him on 2.4.2004 and sold on 18.12.2006 for sale consideration of ₹ 30 lakhs and on which he admitted Short Term Capital Gains (STCG). (ii) at 126, KSRTC Layout, 11 Main, II Phase, JP Nagar, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as JP Nagar property) which was acquired on 12.11.1984 and sold on 6.11.2006 for sale consideration of ₹ 27 lakhs. 6.2.2 The Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG) on this sale of the property at J.P. Nagar, Bangalore was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s visit to the residential site at Anekal and the assessee's statement recorded under section 131 of the Act, the Assessing Officer concluded that the structure standing on the said site is only a temporary one and not a residential house and denied the assessee's claim for exemption under section 54 of the Act. 6.3 The learned CIT (Appeals), in the appellate order dt.28.2.2013, upheld the decision of the Assessing Officer in denying the assessee's claim for exemption under section 54 of the Act rendering the following observations / findings in the matter : (i) The Anekal property is situated in an urban location and therefore the contention of the assessee that the construction carried out at the site is in line with the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he learned Authorised Representative submitted that, in view of this, the findings of the authorities below was liable to be reversed as it was not sustainable and the assessee's appeal on the issue of claim of exemption under section 54 of the Act is to be allowed. 6.5 Per contra, the learned Departmental Representative supported the order of the authorities below and sought the upholding of their orders denying the assessee's claim for exemption under section 54 of the Act. The learned Departmental Representative, inter alia, placed reliance on the decision in the case of Smt. Rohini Reddy (2010) 122 ITD 1 of the ITAT, Hyderabad. 6.6.1 We have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused and considered the material on r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oceeded on the basis of various circumstantial evidence to conclude that the residential house was not fit for habitation and was never intended for residential purpose. We are unable to agree with the reasoning given by the learned CIT (Appeals). If the residential plot layout at Anekal is approved by the BMRDA, it does not by itself negate the approvals given to the assessee by the Neralur Gram Panchayat for construction of the house, the completion certificate for the house issued by them or the house tax receipts etc. issued to the assessee in respect of the property. Further, there is no requirement in law that the residential house plan has to be approved by APA for claiming exemption under section 54 of the Act. Section 54 of the Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
