Agricultural land and residential house exemptions: unchallenged records supported relief, and multiple dwelling units did not bar exemption.

Section 54B relief was supported where land revenue records showed agricultural classification and crop entries for the two years before transfer, and the Revenue failed to rebut those entries with credible contrary material. Section 54F relief was also available because "a residential house" is not confined to a single self-contained unit; multiple residential units may qualify where the claim is limited to the residential portion and excludes commercial area. On the facts stated, unchallenged land records and supporting agricultural income evidence sustained the agricultural-use claim, while the presence of multiple dwelling units did not by itself defeat exemption for the residential construction.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether exemption under Section 54B was admissible on the basis that the land sold had been used for agricultural purposes in the two years immediately preceding transfer; (ii) Whether exemption under Section 54F could be denied because the new construction comprised multiple residential units and some commercial portion.

Issue (i): Whether exemption under Section 54B was admissible on the basis that the land sold had been used for agricultural purposes in the two years immediately preceding transfer.

Analysis: Section 54B applies where the transferred land was used for agricultural purposes during the two years immediately preceding transfer and the specified reinvestment condition is met. The assessee relied on 7/12 extracts showing agricultural classification and crop entries, together with returns reflecting agricultural income in earlier years. Entries in land revenue records carry a presumption of correctness under Section 157 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, though the presumption is rebuttable. The Assessing Officer did not bring credible material to displace those records or the accompanying evidence.

Conclusion: The exemption under Section 54B was rightly allowed and the Revenue's challenge failed.

Issue (ii): Whether exemption under Section 54F could be denied because the new construction comprised multiple residential units and some commercial portion.

Analysis: Section 54F requires investment in a residential house within the prescribed period, and the expression "a residential house" is not confined to a single self-contained unit. A building may consist of several independently usable residential units and still satisfy the statutory requirement, provided the claim is confined to the residential portion and not the commercial area. The assessee's claim was restricted to the residential construction, and the presence of multiple units did not by itself defeat the exemption.

Conclusion: The exemption under Section 54F was allowable to the extent of the residential portion and the assessee succeeded on this issue.

Final Conclusion: The Revenue's appeals failed, the assessee's appeals succeeded, and the common issues were decided in favour of the assessee overall.

Ratio Decidendi: For Section 54B, agricultural use may be proved by un-rebutted land revenue entries supported by surrounding material; for Section 54F, a residential house is not restricted to a single unit, and multiple independent residential units do not bar exemption when the claim relates to residential construction.

---