9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 1031X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esidential house . Accordingly, we are unable to agree with the view taken by the tax authorities that each floor of the individual house/each portion in a floor is separate house property. Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by Ld CIT(A) on this issue and hold that the house property received by the assessee is one residential house only within the meaning of sec.54F of the Act. Accordingly, we are of the view that the reasoning given by the AO to reject the claim for deduction u/s 54F is not justified. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 194/Bang/2020 - - - Dated:- 24-2-2021 - SHRI B. R. BASKARAN , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI , JUDICIAL MEMBER Appellant by : Shri H. Guruswamy Shri M. Ravi Kumar , ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndered by Bangalore bench of Tribunal in the case of Ramaiah Harish (ITA No.789/Bang/2019 dated 04-09-2019). 3. We notice that the decision rendered by the Tribunal in the case of Ramaiah Harish (supra) was an ex-parte order and the same has been recalled by the Tribunal later. Hence the Ld CIT(A) could not have placed his reliance on the above said decision. 4. The question, whether each floor of a single stand alone building should be considered as separate house was examined by the coordinate bench in the case of Shri Bhatkal Ramarao Prakash vs. ITO (ITA No.2692/Bang/2018 dated 04-01-2019). The relevant portion of the order in the above said case is extracted below:- 20. As far as the case of the AO that assessee has purchased ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gita Duggal (2013 30 taxmann.com 230 (Delhi). In the aforesaid decision, the facts were that the assessee entered into a development agreement pursuant to which the developer demolished the property and constructed a new building comprising of three floors. In consideration of granting the development rights, the assessee received ₹ 4 crores and two floors of the new building. The AO held that in computing capital gains, the cost of construction of ₹ 3.43 crores incurred by the developer on the development of the property had to be added to the sum of ₹ 4 crores received by the assessee. The assessee claimed that as the said capital gains was invested in the said two floors ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ould be for the residential use and not for commercial use. If there is nothing in the section which requires that the residential house should be built in a particular manner, it seems to us that the income tax authorities cannot insist upon that requirement. A person may construct a house according to his plans, requirements and compulsions. A person may construct a residential house in such a manner that he may use the ground floor for his own residence and let out the first floor having an independent entry so that his income is augmented. It is quite common to find such arrangements, particularly post-retirement. One may build a house consisting of four bedrooms (all in the same or different floors) in such a manner that an independent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka rendered in the case of B. Ananda Bassappa (supra) and K G Rukminiamma (supra) and since by the Finance Act, 2014, section 54F was amended by substituting the words a residential house with one residential house and since the assessment year in this appeal is after the aforesaid amendment, the conclusions drawn by the Tribunal are incorrect and suffers from an apparent mistake on the face of record and should be rectified suitably. 5. We have heard the rival submissions. The ld. DR reiterated the stand of revenue as contained in the petition. 6. We are of the view that there is no mistake, much less an apparent mistake, in the order of the Tribunal. The Tribunal in pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iew that there is no mistake, much less an apparent mistake, in the order of Tribunal. 6. The view taken in the case cited above is that an independent building can have a number of residential units and it will not lose the character of one residential house . Identical view has been expressed by another co-ordinate bench in the case of Shri Chandrashekar Veerabhadraiah vs. ITO (ITA No.2293/Bang/2019 dated 07-12-2020 relating to AY 2015-16). Accordingly, we are unable to agree with the view taken by the tax authorities that each floor of the individual house/each portion in a floor is separate house property. Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by Ld CIT(A) on this issue and hold that the house property received by the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
