9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 837X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... islation behind the amendment brought to section 54F by virtue of which the expression "a residential house" has been replaced by the words "one residential house in India" 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in the law the learned CIT(A) has erred in construing that two separate flats constitute single residential house without calling for approved architectural plan in that respect and not appreciating the fact that the flats were originally owned by two different persons and each flat has separate sale deed, different sized carpet area, different car parking and separate share certificates issued by society off ice. 4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in the law the learned CIT(A) has erred in relying on decision of Hon'ble ITAT in the case of Sanjay B Pahariya Vs ACIT [ITA No. 6099/Mum/20 14] and Deepak S Bheda Vs ACIT [23 taxmann. com 159 Mum] and Sudha Gurtoo Vs ACIT [15 taxmann. com 231 Delhi] that have been pronounced prior to the amendment made to section 54F of the Income Tax, Act, and not appreciating decision of jurisdictional High Court in the case of Prakash Vs /TO [173 taxmann. com 311 (2008)]. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4. At the time of hearing, the Ld. DR submitted that the CIT(A) has erred in allowing the deduction u/s 54F of the Act in respect of investment of long term capital gains invested in two residential houses. And the post amended applicable from 01. 04. 2015, the deduction u/s 54F of the Act is restricted to only one residential house. The Ld. DR further submitted that the CIT(A) erred in considering the two separate flats treating as a single unit without calling for the architectural plan and prayed for allowing the appeal. Contra, the Ld. AR supported the order of the CIT(A) and referred to the judicial decisions and the paper book in respect of purchase transaction of one residential property and substantiated with material evidences. 5. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The sole crux of the disputed issue envisaged by the Ld. DR that the CIT(A) has erred in granting exemption u/sec 54F of the Act in respect of two residential flats irrespective of amendment which has come into effect from 01. 04. 2015 and is applicable to the assessee for investment in one residential house in India. The Ld. DR further submitted that the flat No s 80 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8th floor plan and page No. 185 to 187 clearly display the entrance and the lobby. The Ld. AR emphasizes that it is only one residential property and relied on the letter issued by the housing society at page 185 of the paper book specifying that residential flat no 801/802 comprise of one residential flat with one entrance, one kitchen,one electricity meter and one gas connection. We find the CIT(A) has dealt on the facts and provisions of law. We consider it appropriate to refer to the observations of the CIT(A) at page 11 to 15 as under: 4. Decision: I have considered the submissions made by the appellant and the reasons recorded by AO. The first ground of appeal is general in nature, therefore, no separate adjudication is required in respect of the same. 4. 1 So far as the second ground of appeal is concerned, I am in agreement with the contention of the appellant that it is entitled for deduction of indexed cost of acquisition while computing long-term capital gains, under provisions of section 48 of the IT Act, in respect of the shares sold by it which are a long term asset. The AG is directed to al low the same to the appellant. Accordingly, the second ground of appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the jointly held residential house: - * The decision in the case of Ravinder Kumar Arora vs CIT 15 taxmann. com 307 (2011) by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court wherein Honourable High Court has held that "The Hon;ble High Court Judge witnessed that al l the payments were made by the assesse towards a residential house which was purchased jointly in the names of the assessee and his wife. Thus, it was concluded that the assessee would be the real owner of the residential house in question. As per the aforesaid facts, the court was of the view that the conditions stipulated in Section 54F stand fulfilled. It would be treated as the property purchased by the assessee in his name and merely because he has included the name of his wife and the property purchased in the joint names would not make any difference. Such a conduct has to be, rather, encouraged which gives empowerment to women. " The Appellant would also like to place reliance on the principal that for the purposes of Section 54F, the new residential house need not be purchased by the appellant in his own name nor is it necessary that it should be purchased exclusively in assessee's name provided that the entire in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and 54F, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Capital gains - Transfer (Immovable property) - Assessment year 2015-16 - Assessee acquired a property from a building society under a lease-cum-sale agreement dated 22-3-2001 - As per terms of agreement, assessee had to construct building on site within two years from date of agreement and assessee could not alienate site for a period of 10 years - Assessee complied with aforesaid terms of lea se-cum-sa!e agreement and put up construction on site on date of agreement and subsequently property was conveyed to assessee by society by registered sale deed dated 31-8-2014 - Assessee sold site as well as building constructed thereon under a sale deed dated 3-12-2014 and computed long-term capital gain on sale of this property by taking date of lease-cum-sale agreement viz., 22-3-2001 as date of acquisition of property - He invested capital gain in acquisition of another property and claimed deduction under section 54F - Assessing Off icer, however, construed date of acquisition of property by assessee as 31-8-2014, and construed capital gain on sale of property as a short-term capital gain and accordingly disallowed deduction claimed under section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
