9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 1264X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the second residential house, the name of his wife who is a doctor by profession as well as his father’s name are included who might have contributed the balance sale consideration. So it is not a case where the assessee is attempting to evade tax. He had made a bonafide attempt to invest the sale consideration from the sale of residential premises in purchasing two residential premises in the very same locality situated nearby. - Decided in favour of assessee - ITA No. 1134/2008 - - - Dated:- 4-7-2014 - Mr. N Kumar And Mr. B Manohar, JJ. Sri Chythanya, Adv. For The Appellant. Sri K.V. Aravind, Adv. For The Respondent. N. KUMAR JUDGMENT This appeal is by the assessee challenging the order passed by the Authorities ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tention of utilizing the said amount for the purpose of renovating the property purchased and also had the intention of purchasing/constructing one more residential property. Thereafter, the assessee produced a purchase deed dated 01.06.2005 wherein he along with his wife Dr. Meena Rao Bette and his father Sri M. Bettegowda has purchased a property No.54/69, H.B.Samaja Road, Basavanagudi, Bangalore, for a sum of ₹ 1,06,00,000/- by withdrawing the amount from Capital Gains Scheme Account. Therefore, he claimed complete exemption under Section 54(1) of the Act. 4.The case of the assessee was rejected on the ground that the assessee has not purchased two residential flats or two houses simultaneously with the intention of converting i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... investment in more than one or more assets and therefore, the Tribunal was of the view the assessee is not entitled to the benefit of Section 54 of the Act insofar as the second house is concerned on the ground that the second house is not anywhere in the vicinity of the first house. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee is in appeal. 6.This appeal was admitted on 30.01.2009 to consider the following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon ble Tribunal was right in law in disallowing the deduction under section 54 in respect of the amount invested in Capital Gains Scheme, which was ultimately invested in the purchase of a second house? (ii)Whether on the facts and in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ally. 8.In the facts of this case, it is clear the assessee was owning a residential premises in Bull Temple Road in Basavanagudi, he sold the said property on 08.03.2004. He has purchased one residential premises in Model House Street which is part of Basavanagudi on 26.05.2004. He has purchased the second residential premises again in Basavanagudi, which is adjoining to Model House Street on 01.06.2005 along with his wife and father. From the facts it is clear that having sold the property in Basavanagudi, probably, as the assessee could not secure a proper residential house sufficiently big to invest the entire sale consideration derived from the sale of residential house, he has chosen to purchase two properties nearby. In fact to pu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
