9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 1364X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns on two different dates. The position remains same even after amendment to section 54F by the Finance Act, 2014 w.e.f. 01.04.2015. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the learned CIT(A) has right in denial of exemption claimed u/s.54F of the Act and hence, we are inclined to uphold the findings of the learned CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal filed by the assessee. - I.T.A.No.1930/Chn y/2017 - - - Dated:- 23-12-2020 - SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G.MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For the Appellant : Mr. N.Arunraj, CA for Mr.S.Sridhar, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Suresh Periasamy,JCIT ORDER PER G.MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Chennai dated 20.06.2017 and pertains to the assessment year 2013-14. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 1. The order of The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 7, Chennai dated 20.06.2017 in I.T.A.No.24/CIT(A)6/2016-17 for the above mentioned Assessment Year is contrary to law, facts, and in the circumstances of the case. 2. The CIT (App ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of ₹ 1,97,97,409/-. The assessee has computed long term capital gain after deducting cost of acquisition and claimed exemption u/s.54F of the Act for purchase of two residential properties amounting to ₹ 83 lakhs and ₹ 69 lakhs. The assessee further stated that claim of exemption u/s.54F of the Act was in accordance with law, because before amendment to section 54F by the Finance Act, 2014 w.e.f. 01.04.2015, benefit of section 54F will be applicable to more than one residential house and hence, even if the assessee has purchased two different houses, exemption cannot be denied u/s.54F of the Act. The Assessing Officer was not convinced with the explanation furnished by the assessee and according to him, as per provisions of section 54F of the Act, the assessee is not eligible for exemption u/s.54F, because he has purchased another residential house other than the new asset, within a period of one year after the date of transfer of the original asset and accordingly, rejected the exemption claimed u/s.54F of the Act and recomputed the long term capital gains from transfer of property. 4. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the benefit of Section 54F will be applicable to one residential house in India. Prior to the said amendment, it is clear that a residential house would include multiple residential units as in the present case where the assessee has got five residential flats. We may also mention here that all the Authorities below have clearly understood that the agreement signed by the assessee with M/s. Mount Housing infrastructure Ltd. is that the assessee will receive 43.75% of the build up area after development, which is construed as one block which may be one or more flats.. In that view of the matter what was before the Assessing Office is only equivalent to 56.25% of land transferred, equivalent to 43.75% of built up area received by the assessee. This built up area got translated into five flats. Hence we are of the opinion that the transaction in this case was not with regard to the number of fiats but with regard t the percentage of the built up area, vis- .- vis. the Undivided Share of Land. In similar circumstances this Court, by order dated 04.01.2012, in T.C.(A) No.656 of 2005 held as follows: The above provision refers to residential house meaning thereby that even i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sidential project and hence even though the assessee purchases two residential houses at two different places, the same qualify for exemption u/s.54F of the Act. In this regard, he relied upon the decisions of Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. V.R.Karpagam (supra) and M/s. Tilokchand Sons Vs. ITO in T.C(A) No.771 of 2009 dated 14.03.2009. 6. The learned DR, on the other hand, supporting the order of the learned CIT(A) submitted that provisions of section 54F of the Act is very clear, as per which, if the assessee purchases more than one residential house, other than new asset within a period of one year, after the date of transfer of original asset, then he is not entitled for exemption u/s.54F of the Act and hence, there is no error in the findings recorded by the Assessing Officer as well as learned CIT(A) to come to the conclusion that assessee has not fulfilled the conditions prescribed u/s.54F of the Act and hence, rightly rejected the claim of exemption and their orders should be upheld. 7. We have heard both sides, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below along with case laws cited by the learned counsel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ived multiple residential units of the same project and at the same time in pursuant to transfer of undivided land and under those facts, the Hon ble Court came to the conclusion that a residential house would include multiple units/ residential units. While arriving at the said conclusion, the Hon ble Court has taken into consideration the amendment to section 54F of the Act by the Finance Act, 2014 w.e.f. 01.04.2015. In this case, the issue before the authorities was whether the assessee is entitled for exemption u/s.54F of the Act, when he purchased two residential house properties at two different locations on two different dates. As we have already noted in earlier paragraphs that if an assessee purchases two different houses at two different locations on two different dates is not entitled for exemption u/s.54F of the Act, because of specific provision provided under the Act, the case law relied upon by the assessee is not applicable to the facts of the present case. The assessee has also relied upon the decision of Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of M/s.Tilokchand Sons Vs. ITO (supra). We have gone through the decision rendered by the Hon ble High Court and find that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
