9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (10) TMI 940X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... its. Assessee stated that this issue is decided in the case of CIT vs. Gunmanmal Jain [ 2017 (3) TMI 394 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] wherein it was held that amendment was made to s. 54F of the Act with regard to word a by Finance (No.2) Act, 2014 with effect only from 01.04.2015 withdrawing deduction for more than one flat (residential house). Prior to said amendment, a residential house would multiple flats/residential units. We are of the view that the amendment in the provisions of s. 54(1) replacing the word a residential house by one residential house was brought in Finance (No.2) Act, 2014 w.e.f 01.04.2014 and will apply for A.Y 2015-16. The relevant assessment year before us is 2013-14 and hence, the assessee is eligible for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... GESAN PAN ABPPL8184N. I request you to kindly condone the delay of 06 days in filing the Income Tax Appeal Papers, in the above case, for the Assessment Year 2013-14. The appeal could not filed in time. I humbly request again that the delay may be condoned. We see that the delay is very small and cause seems reasonable, which was not contested by the assessee. Hence, we condone the delay in filing of this appeal by Revenue and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. The only issue in this appeal of Revenue is as regards to the order of CIT(A) deleting the disallowance of claim of deduction u/s. 54F of the Act on the reason that the assessee earned only one residential house. For this, the Revenue has raised the following effectiv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt noted that the vacant land purchased i.e., Plot No.18, Ganesh Nagar is a commercial property, which is leased to a hospital and Plot No.6, Ganesh Nagar is a vacant land. But, the A.O noted from the entire facts that Plot No.6 is a house having annual rental value of Rs. 1,200/- and he noted that the assessee has seized a second house and hence, not entitled to claim for deduction. For this, he observed as under: AR's submission's are duly considered. After receiving submissions made by the assessee himself before the IT Authority (with respect to the sale deed dated 09.06.2012 Plot No.6) indicates that the there was a (i) structure of 1500 sq feet (750sq ground floor 750sq at first floor). (ii) With 2 electric po ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roperty. from the appellant's submission, it is clear that the appellant had only one residential property at the time of sale of ancestral land which resulted in LTCG. 4.3.5 : In view of the above .appellant's submission with supporting documents, ;I am of the consider opinion that the appellant is entitled to claim deduction u/.s 54F.: Therefore, the AO is directed to allow the appellant's claim of deduction u/s 54F. The appellant's ground is allowed. Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. We have heard both the sides, perused the material available on record and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee first of all stated that Plot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
