9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 1203X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) has erred in not appreciating that the said property was under dispute and was occupied by the tenants who were not willing to vacate the premises. In these circumstances, the market value of the property was lower than the stamp duty guideline value. The addition made u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) is bad in law and is liable to be deleted. 2.2 The learned CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that assessee had objected to the assessing officer adopting the guideline value of the property for stamp duty purposes in place of the purchase consideration specified in the sale deed, the assessing officer ought to have referred the property for valuation to the valuation officer of the Income Tax Department. The assessing officer having failed to refer the property for valuation to the valuation officer of the Income Tax Department the addition made u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) is bad in law and is liable to be deleted. 2.3 The learned CIT(A) has erred in not following the judicial precedents where in it is held that should an assessee challenge or object to the assessing officer adopting the guideline value of the property for stamp duty purposes in place of the stated consideration in the sale deed, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the residential property which was purchased on 4.9.2014 was owned by 4 co-owners. All the 4 co-owners had jointly executed a single sale deed in the appellant's favour. The appellant having satisfied all the conditions provided under section 54F, the exemption of Rs. 2,00,23,125 is to be allowed. 3.3 The learned CIT(A) Bangalore has erred in concluding that the appellant has invested in four new houses and therefore is not eligible for deduction u/s 54F of the Act. The impugned conclusion that the appellant has invested in four new houses and therefore is not eligible for deduction u/s 54F have been made without any basis or evidence and is therefore bad in law and liable to be quashed. 4. Assuming without admitting that the appellant had purchased 4 new houses as held by the learned assessing officer and CIT(A), the appellant is still eligible for exemption u/s 54F. Section 54F requiring the purchase or construction of one residential house in India was introduced with effect from AY 2015-16. For the AY 2014-15, the appellant was eligible to purchase more than one residential house for the purpose of claiming exemption u/s 54F. The exemption of Rs. 2,00,23,125 u/s 54F is to b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as lower than the sub-registrar guideline value. According to the assessee, the primary reason for this was that the above said property was under dispute at the time of purchase. There were atleast 4 tenants occupying the said property who were not willing to vacate. Litigation petition vide F.D.P No. 100/2008 O.S. No. 784/2001, CCIL No. 39 dated 16/02/2008 was filed by Smt. Rathnamma on behalf of the seller Sri. B. Murudappa before City Civil Court, Bangalore to vacate the property. As the property was under litigation, the seller could not find any appropriate buyer. The assessee's business premises is adjacent to the said litigated property. The assessee was given an offer by the seller to buy the said property in its existing condition. The assessee accepted the offer of the seller to purchase the property and also bear the settlement cost payable to the litigants/tenants in order to get the vacant possession. Subsequently in order to get the clear title and possession of the property the assessee paid settlement amount to the tenants. 3. As per section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act, where an individual or a Hindu undivided family receives, in any previous year, from any person an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the guideline value of the property for stamp duty purposes in place of the stated consideration in the sale deed for the purposes of computing LTCG, then the Assessing Officer ought to refer the property for valuation to the Valuation Officer of the Income Tax Department. [T.V. Nagasena v ITO (2012) 24 taxmann.com 30 (Bang)]. According to the ld. AR, this case law will apply to the facts of the case since the wordings of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act are also similar to section 50C of the I.T. Act. 8. It was submitted that the Delhi Tribunal in ITO v Aditya Narain Verma HUF ITA NO. 4166/Del/2013 dated 07-06-2017 has held that failure by the AO to refer the valuation of the capital asset to a valuation officer instead of adopting the value taken by the stamp duty authorities is a fatal error and the assessment order has to be annulled. The matter cannot be set aside to the AO for a second chance. The power of the ITAT to set aside cannot be exercised so as to allow the AO to cover up the deficiencies in his case. 9. Further, during the course of first appellate proceedings, the assessee filed a copy of valuation report dated 01/06/2013. As per this valuation report, the value ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion paid to the tenant was subsequent to the purchase of property. At the most, it can be considered as improvement cost and not as cost of purchase. Hence the action of the AO to bring the differential amount between purchase value and stamp duty value is to be upheld. 15. Without prejudice to the above it is submitted that the assessee had paid only Rs. 4,00,000 as settlement amount to the tenant as stated in the page no 76 to 81 of PB1. With expenditure of Rs. 4,00,000 the assessee had obtained benefit of Rs. 72,47,000. It needs to be treated as income from other sources. Envisaging these entire situation, the legislature brought the above section. The differential amount between the stamp duty value and the purchase consideration paid is akin to gift received from third party. Hence it is treated as taxable in the hands of purchaser under the Act. Hence there is no force in the argument of the assessee that the property was under dispute and section 56(2)(vii)(b) is not applicable. 16. ii. Return of excessive TDS : The fact that the assessee had returned the TDS has not consequence under the Act. 17. iii. Reference to the DVO : The assessee seeks to invoke the provisions of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taxed u/s. 56(2)(vii) of the Act in the hands of the assessee as well as his spouse, Smt. Rathna. As seen from the records, the assessee filed valuation report from the registered valuer before the AO and disputed the stamp duty value of the property. However, the AO adopted the stamp duty value as deemed consideration applying the provisions of section 56(2)(vii) of the Act and the difference between the stamp duty value and actual sale consideration paid by the assessee was brought to tax. The assessee all along disputed the valuation of property adopted by the AO on the reason that the said property was subject to litigation as the property was occupied by Smt. Rathnamma and for vacating the property litigation is pending before the court. If the AO disputed the valuation of property made by the registered valuer, he could have very well referred the matter to the DVO to value the same for the purpose of ascertaining the correct value of the property. However, he failed to do so. 21. In ITO v. Aastha Goel in ITA No.6005/Del/2017 dated 8.10.2018, similar issue was considered by the Tribunal wherein the CIT(Appeals) deleted the addition made by the AO u/s. 56(2)(vii)(b) being the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e order of the ld. CIT(A) being in accordance with law should be upheld. 16. We find merit in the above argument of the ld. counsel for the assessee. It is an admitted fact that during the course of assessment proceedings the assessee had filed a valuation report of Captain Suresh Dutt & Associates, Government of India approved and registered valuers, who valued the property at Rs. 75,40,000/- vide their report dated 07.06.2013, copy of which is placed at pages 33 to 37 of the Paper Book. It is also an admitted fact that the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings had filed the representations made by the Narela Industrial Complex Welfare Association to the then Chief Minister of Delhi dated 09.12.2010 and another on 30.01.2014, copies of which are placed at pages 29 to 32 of the Paper Book. However, it is strange to note that there is not a whisper in the assessment order by the Assessing Officer on the above facts. Even though the assessee has brought to the notice of the Assessing Officer regarding the arbitrary valuation adopted by the stamp valuation authorities, the Assessing Officer instead of referring the matter to the DVO, made the addition on the basis of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proceedings where the properties were sold well below the Circle Rates. The AR argued that due to slump in the property market, the properties in the Narela Industrial area are being sold well below the Circle rates. The documentary evidences now furnished by the AR of assessee is placed on records. In view of above narrated submissions and the facts of the case, it is requested that the appeal of the assessee may please be adjudicated on the merits of the case. 17. So far as the reliance placed on by the Revenue on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Jansampark Advertising and Marketing (P) Ltd. (supra) is concerned, the same, in our opinion, is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In that case the assessment was reopened on the basis of the report of the Investigation Wing that the assessee has received accommodation entries in shape of bogus share capital. Since the Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the genuineness of the claim of receipt of share capital, he issued summons u/s 131 but no one appeared and some of the notices were returned undelivered with the postal remark "Left/no such person". On being asked by the Assessing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it is true that the assessee cannot be called upon to adduce conclusive proof on all these three questions, it is nonetheless legitimate expectation of the process that he would bring in some proof so as to discharge the initial burden placed on him. Since Section 68 itself declares that the credited sum would have to be included in the income of the assessee in the absence of explanation, or in the event of explanation being not satisfactory, it naturally follows that the material submitted by the assessee with his explanation must itself be wholesome or not untrue. It is only when the explanation and the material offered by the assessee at this stage passes this muster that the initial onus placed on him would shift leaving it to the AO to start inquiring into the affairs of the third party. ** ** ** 42. The AO here may have failed to discharge his obligation to conduct a proper inquiry to take the matter to logical conclusion. But CIT (Appeals), having noticed want of proper inquiry, could not have closed the chapter simply by allowing the appeal and deleting the additions made. It was also the obligation of the first appellate authority, as indeed of ITAT, to have ensured t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cer for referring the case to the valuation officer. However, the Tribunal after considering the various submissions made by the assessee rejected such request of the Revenue and upheld the order of the ld. CIT(A) by observing as under :- "4.1 On the very perusal of the provisions laid down under section 50C of the Act reproduced hereinabove. we fully concur with the finding of the Id. CIT (Appeals) that when the assessee in the present case had claimed before Assessing Officer that the value adopted or assessed by the stamp valuation authority under sub section (1) exceeds the fair market value of the property as on the date of transfer, the Assessing Officer should have referred the valuation of the capital asset to a valuation officer instead of adopting the value taken by the state authority for the purpose of stamp duty. The very purpose of the Legislature behind the provisions laid down under sub section (2) to section 50C of the Act is that a valuation officer is an expert of the subject for such valuation and is certainly in a better position than the Assessing Officer to determine the valuation. Thus, non-compliance of the provisions laid down under sub section (2) by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g disputed the valuation of property adopted by the AO for the purpose of registration of the same and the AO failed to find out the correct value of the property both at the assessment stage as well as at the first appellate stage. 24. This was considered by the Agra Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Hari Om Garg in ITA No.342/Agra/2017 dated 31.5.2019 wherein a view was taken that the Department cannot be allowed a second inning by sending the matter back to the Assessing Officer enabling the revenue to fill the lacunae and shortcomings and further putting the assessee to face a re-trail for no fault of him and to prove before the Assessing Officer that the sale consideration was the fair market value of the property purchased by him. While coming to such conclusion the Tribunal considered various decisions of Hon'ble High Courts and Tribunals and the observations of the Tribunal are as under: - '8. In the present case, neither, the AO nor the ld. CIT(A) has made any efforts to crystalize the actual value of investment by the assessee in the purchase of the property by way of bringing material documentary evidence on record to establish the unexplained investment in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Act is a rule of evidence in assessing the valuation of property for calculating the capital gain. The deeming provision under section 50 C (1) of the Act is rebuttable. It is well known that an immovable property may have various attributes, charges, encumbrances, limitations and conditions. The Stamp Valuation Authority does not take into consideration the attributes of the property for determining the fair market value in the condition the property is a offered for sale and is purchased. He is required to value the property in accordance with the circle rates fixed by the Collector. The object of the valuation by the Stamp Valuation Authority is to secure revenue on such sale and not to determine the true, correct and fair market value on which it may be purchased by a willing purchaser subject to and taking into consideration its situation, condition and other attributes such as it occupation by tenant, any charge or legal encumbrances. 11. Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Allahabad in the case of Dr. Shahsi Kant Garg v. CIT 285 ITR 0158 has also observed "that if under the provisions of the Act an authority is required to exercise power or do an act in a particu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , a party guilty of remissness and gross negligence is not entitled to indulgence being shown. In this context, I would like to make a reference to a decision of the Chennai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Tatia Skyline & Health Farms Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2000] 66 TTJ (Chennai) 203 : [1999] 70 ITD 387 (Chennai). In this decision, on the assessee's request that the case be sent back to the AO for another round of enquiry and fresh assessment in accordance with law. the Bench, rejecting the assessee's request has held that the remand order should be made in very rare and exceptional case, for example, if at original stage, patently grave error was committed by the original authority or that the order was made in haste owning to the limitation or that the first appellate authority had violated the rules of natural justice. Nothing like this has happened on the present case. The Bench has further observed that the Courts have also cautioned the Appellate Authorities by holding that remand should be made only in those cases where the original authorities have not passed orders in accordance with law but in no case, remand should be made only in those cases where the original ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me Court also in the case of 'Parusram Pottery Works Co. Ltd. v. ITO', 106 ITR 0001 (SC)] observed as follows - It has been said that the taxes are the price that we pay for civilization. If so, it is essential that those who are entrusted with the task of calculating and realising that price should familiarise themselves with the relevant provisions and become well versed with the law on the subject. Any remissness on their part can only be at the cost of the national exchequer and must necessarily result in loss of revenue. At the same time, we have to bear in mind that the policy of law is that there must be a point of finality in all legal proceedings, that stale issues should not be reactivated beyond a particular stage and that lapse of time must induce repose in and set at rest judicial and quasi-judicial controversies as it must in other spheres of human activity. (emphasis supplied) 19. The Coordinate Bench in the case of 'Dr. Sanjay Chobey (HUF) v. ACIT', Circle - 2(3), Jhansi, ITA No 140/Agr/2018 (Order dated 02/07/2018), in almost similar facts allowed the assessee's appeal observing, vide para 14, as under - "The lower authorities passed the o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... overnment Registered valuer submitted by the assessee and the submissions thereon. The Assessing Officer mechanically applied provisions of section 56(2) of the Act to bring the difference between the stamp duty value and the actual sale consideration paid by the assessee without making any efforts to find out the actual cost of the property when in fact the assessee stated that the property when purchased was under semi construction stage and there were disputes between builders and the purchasers and ultimately the builder was abandoned the project and left. The assessee also stated that what was purchased as per the agreement is different than what was given to him as the property was sold to two persons. So there is dispute in the area acquired by the assessee also. In such circumstances, it was all the more necessary for the Assessing Officer to refer it to the Valuation Officer which he miserably failed. Even at the stage of appellate proceedings when the assessee produced Valuation Officer's report who valued Flat No. 601 in the very same Building at Rs. 1,00,76,000/- the Ld.CIT(A) should have called for remand report and in turn the Valuation Officer's report which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was gifted by the assessee to his daughter Ms. Rashmi vide registered gift deed executed on 25.07.2013. 28. The assessee along with his wife Smt. Rathna jointly owned a commercial property bearing No. 645, V Block, 11th Main Road, Jayanagar, Bangalore. The said commercial property was sold on 24.08.2013 in favour of Ms. Antrix Techinfo Pvt Ltd for a consideration of Rs. 7,10,00,000. The sale was done after the residential property was gifted to assessee. The assessee's share of sale consideration was Rs. 3,55,00,000. The assessee's share of indexed cost of acquisition and indexed cost of improvement was Rs. 15,48,053 and Rs. 1,35,73,822 respectively. After considering the above cost, the long term capital gains was computed at Rs. 2,00,23,125. 29. It was submitted that as on the date of sale of the above property, the assessee owned only one residential property situated at Basavanagudi, Bangalore. During the course of hearing, the assessee filed a copy of receipt of latest municipal tax paid by Mrs. Rashmi at Page no. 381 of the PB. Copy of Khata extract and khata certificate in the name of Mrs. Rashmi are filed. As on the date of transfer of the original asset (Commercial Prop ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncome u/s 139(1). The assessee having satisfied all the conditions provided under section 54F claimed exemption of long term capital gains to the extent of Rs. 2,00,23,125. In the income tax return filed, the assessee had inadvertently selected the exemption section as 54 instead of 54F. 32. The ld. AR submitted that the AO in the remand report has stated that as the assessee had purchased 4 properties from 4 different persons, therefore deduction u/s 54F of the Act is not to be allowed. The CIT(A) in para 5.10 of the appellate order denied the deduction claimed u/s 54F of the Act on the ground that the assessee has invested in 4 different properties owned by four different people and same cannot be construed as one residential property. 33. In this regard, it is submitted that a perusal of the purchase deed would show that the assessee had purchased the new asset from one Smt. Saroja and 3 daughters of Smt. Saroja, Smt .A.P. Gayathri, Smt. A.P. Bharathi and Smt. A.P. Sandhya vide single sale deed dated 04/09/2014. The property was an ancestral property and vide partition deed dated 16/08/1991, the vendors got the said property. This fact can be verified from page no. 4 of the sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vey numbers i.e., 12/1 to 12/4. 36. It was further submitted that after purchasing the property from above vendors, the assessee once again got the khata merged. Copy of khata merger certificate in kannada language and khata extract in the name of the assessee is available at pages 267 and 268 of the Paper book. It is clear from the khata extract that the khata has been transferred in the name of the assessee and the properties have been merged to survey no. 12/1. Thus the assessee proved beyond doubt that the property purchased from 4 vendors is situated at same premises. The residential units and land appurtenant thereto are to be treated as a residential house and deduction is to be allowed to the appellant. Reliance was also placed on the order of the of the ITAT passed in the case of Sri. Maurice Patrick De Rebello vs ITO ( copy available at page no. 372 to 378 of the compilation of case laws) wherein the deduction u/s 54 of the Act has been allowed with respect to all the flats received under JDA arrangement. 37. The assessee also relied upon the decision of co-ordinate bench of the ITAT in the case of Chandrashekhar Veerabhadraiah vs ITO (ITA No.2293/Bang/2019 dated 7.12.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... below: "'WHEREAS, the Vendors are the absolute owners in possession and enjoyment of the immovable properties bearing New PID Nos.59-111-12/1, 59- 111-12/2, 59-111-12/4 and 59-111-12/3 (old Nos.258:12:01, 258:12:02, 258:12:04 and 258:12.*03) respectively of VENDORS, situated at S Kariyappa Road, (Old Kanakapura Main Road). 7."' Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore - 560 070, which are more fully described in the schedule hereunder and hereinafter referred to as "Schedule of Properties Item .Vos.2,2,3 & 4". ii. This property was originally allotted to Late Mr. D K Pillanna by Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) and after his demise BDA executed a sale deed in favour of Smt Chikkaveeramma, Smt. D.P. Saroja and Smt D.P. Sujatha on i 5.09.1990. iii. The said property was partitioned on 16.08.1991 and Smt D.P Saroja and her children got a portion of the property. iv. Subsequent to partition based on the request of Smt. D.P Saroja and her children the vendors in the case of the property purchased by the assessee made application and got new PIDS and muted their names in the record. The relevant portion is reproduced (page 244 of PB 1). "WHEREAS, under the said partition, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... chedule of the properties mentioned below: "SCHEDULE OF THE PROPERTIES ITEM No.1: Property belonging to Smt. D.P. Saroja and Sri. A.P. Varadaraj All that piece and parcel of the residential property bearing New PlD No.59-111-12/1 (Old-No 258:12:01), situated at S. Kariyappa Road, (previously Kanakapura Road), 7th Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore, with boundaries as under East by: Old.No.245 site West by: Property of Smt. A.P. Gayathri North by: Property bearing Old No.259 South by: Property of Smt. D.P. Sujatha and her children The site has the following measurements East to West : 55ft North to South : 33 1/2 ft (Area: 1842.5 Sq.ft) The Property has a residential RCC ground Floor building of about 10 squares with Red Oxide Flooring, doors and window shatters and frames are made of jungle wood constructed in the year 1963-64. ITEM No.2: Property belonging to Smt. A. P. Gayathri All that piece and parcel of the residential property bearing New PID No.59-111-12/2 (Old No. 258:12:02), situated at S. Kariyappa Road, (previously Kanakapura Road), 7th Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore with bounder boundaries as under. East by: Property of Smt. D.P. Saroja and A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... having a duplex house of 10 squares was built in 1995-96 c. New PID No.59-111-12/4 having 3 squares ground floor building was built in 1995-96 d. New PID No.59-111-12/3 is a vacant site. 45. All three properties are constructed as independent houses without common wall. They are stand alone villa type houses. Based on the boundary of the properties mentioned in the registered sale deed a rough drawing of the properties purchased by the assessee is attached (Annexure 1). These independent houses necessarily have independent electricity connection, water connection etc. 46. The ld. DR submitted that all the above facts clearly show that the assessee claimed deduction in violation of Section 54F of the Act. Hence, the assessee is not eligible for deduction neither u/s 54 nor u/s 54F. 47. We have heard both the parties. In the present case, the assessee along with his wife, Mrs. Rathna sold a property bearing No. No. 645, V Block, 11th Main Road, Jayanagar, Bangalore for a total consideration of Rs. 7,02,90,000 for which the share of assessee was 50%. The said property was a commercial property. The assessee claimed deduction u/s. 54F of the Act. The AO observed that the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e name of 4 individuals, later after purchasing the above properties the assessee once again got the Katha merged which is kept on record at pages 267 & 268 of PB. It is observed that the Katha has been transferred in the name of the present assessee and all the properties have been merged to Sy.No.12/1 as a single property. The property though purchased from four Vendors remains as a single property. Being so, the property has to be considered as a single property and deduction u/s. 54F should be granted. This view is also supported by the decision of Sri. Maurice Patrick De Rebello vs ITO (supra) wherein it was held as under:- "9. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The facts of the assessee's case are similar to the case of Smt.K.G.Rukminiamma reported in 331 ITR 221 (Kar.) In the case of K.G.Rukminiamma (supra) the assessee on a site measuring 30' x 110' had a residential premises. Under a joint development agreement the assessee gave that property to a builder for construction of residential units. Under the agreement, eight flats are to be put up in that property. Four flats representing 48% is the share of the assessee and the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the case of CIT vs Gumanmal Jain reported in 394 ITR 666 (Mad.) 9.2 In the present case, all the flats for which the assessee is claiming exemption u/s 54 of the I.T.Act are situated in the same premises. Therefore, the judgment rendered in the case of Smt.K.G.Rukminiamma (supra) will squarely apply. In the light of the above judicial pronouncements on identical facts, we are of the view that the assessee is entitled to deduction u/s 54 of the I.T. Act on the entire built-up area received from the builder as per the JDA dated 28.04.2008. Since we have decided the issue of claim of deduction u/s 54 of the I.T.Act, in favour of the assessee, the other issues raised by the assessee in the grounds of appeal are not adjudicated. It is ordered accordingly." 52. Further, in the case of Shri. Chandrashekar Veerabhadraiah v. ITO in ITA No.2293/Bang/2019 dated 07.12.2020, this Tribunal held as under:- "9. We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. Section 54F of the Act reads as follows: "54F. (1) [Subject to the provisions of sub-section (4), where, in the case of an assessee being an individual or a Hindu undivided family], the capital gain arises from the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... should be understood in a sense that building should be of residential house in nature and "a" and should not be understood to indicate a singular number. Section 54/54F uses the expression "a residential house" and not "a residential unit". Section 54F requires the assessee to acquire "a residential house" and so long as the assessee acquires the building, it may be constructed, for the sake of convenience, in such a manner as to consist of several units which can, if the need arises, be conveniently and independently, used as an independent residence, the requirement of Section should be taken to have been satisfied. There is nothing in these Sections which requires a residential house to be constructed in a particular manner. The only requirement is that it should be for the residential use and not for commercial use. If there is nothing in this Section which requires that the residential house should be in 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 t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
