9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 145X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee has satisfied the conditions prescribed u/s. 54 - In this case, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the house property purchased by the assessee on 30.08.2012 is having a multiple units, which is one a residential house property. Therefore, we are of the considered view that, the assessee is entitled for exemption u/s. 54 - In so for as the observations of the AO with regard to the purchase of another residential house property on 12.12.2013 in light of provisions of section 54F we find that the observations of the AO is devoid of merits, because the assessee never claimed exemption u/s. 54F of the Act, but has claimed exemption u/s. 54 of the Act. Therefore, we reject the observations of the AO. We are of the considered view that exemption claimed u/s. 54 of the Act, in respect of purchase of new residential house property on 30.08.2012 is in accordance with law and the assessee has rightly claimed exemption after satisfying conditions prescribed therein. Therefore, we direct the AO to allow exemption claimed u/s. 54 of the Act, in respect of purchase of new residential house property and construction thereon. Exemption claimed u/s. 54EC - As we fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... still there is a delay of 117 days in filing appeal, which could not be explained by the assessee with necessary reasons. Although, assessee claims to have underwent some surgeries and was under medical treatment, but said claim was not substantiated. Therefore, delay should not be condoned. 4. We have heard both the parties and considered relevant contents of petition filed by the assessee for condonation of delay. As explained by the assessee, although there is a delay of 832 days in filing of appeal, 715 days is covered under Covid period and was exempted from condonation of delay by the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court. The remaining period of 117 days delay is genuine, because of ill-health of the assessee which prevented the assessee to file appeal before the tribunal within 60 days from the date of service of order. We have gone through reasons given by the assessee, in light of certain evidences including medical records and we find that the assessee was suffering from various ailments as narrated in her affidavit which caused delay in filing of appeal. It is a well stated principle of law by the decisions of various courts including the Hon ble Supreme Court in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y a residential building and since one residential building is replaced by a new residential building containing in its body 13 independent residential flats the denial of exemption under section 54 is not correct. 7.The learned Commissioner(Appeals) ought to have appreciated the fact that the land remained the same and the entire land remained in the hands of the assessee only and further exemption under section 54 is available for land also. 8.The learned Commissioner(Appeals) ought to have appreciated the fact that exemption is claimed under section 54 and not under section 54F. 9.The learned Commissioner(Appeals) ought to have appreciated the fact that where income had been offered under section 24 and when such a residential property is convered into a new property the exemption under section 54 is available even if more than one house had been constructed. 10.The learned Commissioner(Appeals) ought to have appreciated the fact that restriction of exemption under section 54 or 54F had entered into the statute books only from the assessment year 2015-2016 and since the assessment year involved in this case is 2013-2014 the restriction to a single house does ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to file necessary evidences including justification for claim of exemption u/s. 54 of the Act. The AO, on the basis of evidences filed by the assessee and also by conducting independent enquiries including report of inspector of Income-tax, opined that the assessee is not entitled for exemption u/s. 54 of the Act, because the new house purchased by the assessee is having multiple units with separate kitchen etc. The AO, further noted that the assessee had also purchased one more property at Aminjikarai, Chennai on 12.12.2013 for a sum of Rs. 35 lakhs. Although, said property is eligible for exemption u/s. 54 of the Act, but because the assessee owned more than one residential house at the time of purchase of new asset, the assessee is not entitled for exemption u/s. 54F of the Act also. Therefore, rejected exemption claimed u/s. 54 of the Act and also 54EC of the Act and computed taxable long term capital gains at Rs. 1,92,36,734/-. 8. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). Before the ld CIT(A), the assessee has justified computation of long term capital gains after availing benefit of exemption u/s. 54 of the Act, along wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rther, the assessee is also not entitled for exemption u/s. 54F of the Act, because new house purchased by the assessee is having multiple units, which is evident from the report of inspector. The DR, further submitted that the assessee is also not eligible for exemption u/s. 54F of the Act, in respect of house property purchased at Aminjikarai, because at the time of transfer of original asset, the assessee was having more than one residential house property. Therefore, he submitted that there is no error in the reasons given by the AO to deny the benefit of exemption u/s 54 of the Act and their order should be upheld. 11. We have heard both the parties, perused materials available on record and gone through orders of the authorities below. The facts with regard to the impugned dispute are that the property comprising land and building at Chennai has been acquired by Chennai metro Rail Ltd u/s. 194LA of the Act on 30.04.2012, for a consideration of Rs. 2,08,81,742/-. The said property has been acquired by the assessee in the year 1987 and further made a construction in the year 1997. The assessee had also purchased new residential house property on 30.08.2012 for a consideratio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 015] 228 Taxman 62 (SC). A similar view has been taken by the Hon ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Arun K. Thiagarajan vs CIT (supra), where it has been clearly held that for the purpose of allowing benefit of exemption u/s. 54(1), expression a residential house includes within its ambit plural numbers as well and thus, it cannot be construed as one residential house only. The Hon ble High Court of Madras in the case of G. Chinnadurai vs ITO (supra), has considered an identical issue and held that the expression a residential house should not be taken to convey meaning that it refers to a single residential house and further, it may include plural numbers as well. The sum and substances of ratio laid down by various courts was that before amendment of section 54(1) of the Act, by the Finance Act, 2014 w.e.f. 01.04.2015, in a residential house property, if multiple units are there, still the assessee can claim the benefit of exemption u/s. 54 of the Act. In this case, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the house property purchased by the assessee on 30.08.2012 is having a multiple units, which is one a residential house property. Therefore, we are of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
