9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 712X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s claim of exemption under section 54 could not be denied. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 6884/MUM/2014 - - - Dated:- 11-4-2018 - Shri Shamim Yahya, AM And Shri Ravish Sood, JM Assessee by : Shri Sandeep Shridhar, CA. Department by : Shri M.C. Omi Ningshen,D.R ORDER Per Ravish Sood, Judicial Member The present appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A)-10, Mumbai, dated 16.07.2014, which in itself arises from the order passed by the A.O under Sec. 143(3) of the Income-tax act, 1961 (for short Act‟), dated 30.12.2011 for A.Y 2009-10. The Revenue assailing the order of the CIT(A) had raised before us the following grounds of appeal:- On the fats and in the ci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment made in the aforesaid four flats purchased by her. The Assessing Officer being of the view that as per Sec. 54F the assessee was entitled for purchase of one flat against the long term capital gain on transfer of certain capital asset, therefore, called upon the assessee to justify the exemption claimed by her in the return of income. The assessee in her reply submitted before the Assessing Officer that though she had purchased the residential flats as a single residential house, but however, the builder had transferred the same through four separate agreements. The assessee in order to drive home her contention that the aforesaid four flats were purchased by her as a self contained single residential unit, placed on record of the A.O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). The assessee, in the course of the appellate proceedings reiterated the submissions which he had made before the Assessing Officer. The assessee further in order to impress upon the CIT(A) that the aforesaid four flats constituted a single residential unit, placed on record the photographs of the said flats. The CIT(A) after deliberating on the contentions raised by the assessee and the material placed on record by her, called for a remand report as well as directed the Assessing Officer to make a field enquiry and confirm as to whether all the four units purchased by the assessee constituted respective single residential units or a composite residential unit. That pursuant to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entative (for short, 'A.R') for the assessee submitted that the issue involved in the present appeal was squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT-21, Mumbai vs. Devdas Naik (2014) 366 ITR 12 (Bom), wherein the Hon'ble High Court had held that where acquisition of two flats had been done independently, but however, the said flats were constructed in such a way that the adjacent units or flats could be combined into one, and eventually were merged into a single unit and were used for the purpose of residence by the assessee, the claim of the assessee towards exemption under section 54 could not be denied. The ld. A.R also placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon‟ble High C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of the property under consideration had reported that the Flats /units nos. 1901, 1902, 1903 and 1904 were merged/constituted into one flat having common entrance door. The relevant extract of the report of the Income Tax Inspector is reproduced as under:- As directed , I visited the formal residence of Smt. Kavita Krishna Gupta on 22/8/2013 at Sahyadri Tower Co-op Society, Upper Govind Nagar, Malad East, Mumbai 400 097 to verify the assesses claim that whether all the four units purchased by the assessee constitute a single residence or not. The factual report are as under:- The society is located in posh area of Malad-East, Each floor contain 4 entrance door for 4 flats, 2 units constitute a single flat and single ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h Court in the aforesaid judgment had concluded that that where acquisition of two flats had been done independently by the assessee, but however, the said flats were constructed in such a way that the adjacent units or flats could be combined into one, and eventually had been merged into a single unit and were used for the purpose of residence by the assessee, the latters claim of exemption under section 54 could not be denied. Still further, we find that a similar view was also earlier taken by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT-12 vs. Raman Kumar Suri (2013) 212 Taxman 411 (Bom), wherein the Hon'ble High Court upholding the order of the Tribunal had concluded that where the assessee had acquired one resident ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
