9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (12) TMI 1058X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore than one residential house, which are i.e., one being at Delhi and another at Faridabad, disregarding the Hon ble Bombay High Court s decision in K.C. Kaushik vs. P.B. Rane, Fifth ITO, and others 185 ITR 499 (Bom), in which it was held that relief in respect of the capital gain has, of course, to be adjusted against one of the houses only? 2. That the appellant craves for the permission to add, delete or amend the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing of appeal. 2. The assessee has sold his flat at Plot No.4, Sector 7, Dwaraka for a sum of Rs.20 lac against which exemption u/s 54 was claimed from capital gain on account of purchase of two residential houses; one is for a sum of Rs.3,19,652/- purchased on 6th October, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4. On the other hand, Ld. AR relied on the decision of Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. D. Anand Basapa 309 ITR 329 (Kar) whereby it has been held that assessee can claim deduction in respect of two residential houses. It was submitted that the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of K.C. Kaushik vs. P.B. Rane (supra) relied upon by the revenue in its ground has no application as the same relates to the choice of the assessee to avail exemption. Our attention was drawn to certain observations of Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. D. Anand Basapa (supra) and the submission of Ld. AR as filed before us are as under:- The only issue is whether the assessee case avail exemption U/s 54 on investment i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... departmental appeal should be dismissed. 6. We have carefully considered the rival submissions in the light of the material placed before us. The facts in the present case are clear. The assessee is claiming exemption in respect of two independent residential houses situated at different locations; one is in Dilshad Colony, Delhi and the other is in Faridabad. The assessee in the Special Bench case had also purchased two residential houses against sale consideration of residential flat at Gulistan situated at Bhulabai Desai Road, Mumbai. One residential property was at Varun Apartments at Varsova and the other property was at Erlyn Apartments, Bandra and it was held by the Special bench in the aforementioned case i.e., ITO vs. Ms Sushi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h Court has observed that the fact that at the time when Inspector inspected the premises, the flats were occupied by two different tenants is not the ground to hold that apartment is not one residential unit. The fact that the assessee could have purchased both the flats in one single sale deed or could be narrated the purchase of two premises as one unit in the sale deed is not the ground to hold that the assesee had no intention to purchase two flats as one unit. From these observations of Hon ble High Court, it is clear that while rendering the decision they have kept in mind that the purchase of two flats in the same building which were united for living of the assessee by making necessary modifications made the residential unit as one ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
