Section 54F deduction allowed where the alleged second property was only open land, not a residential house.

Deduction under section 54F could not be denied merely because the assessee was said to own another property, where the Revenue failed to prove that the asset was a habitable residential house at the time of transfer. On the basis of the sale deed, photographs and the purchaser's affidavit, the Tribunal found the property to be open land without an existing residential structure; earlier descriptions or valuation entries were insufficient to establish a residential house. The statutory bar for denying section 54F relief was therefore not attracted, and the assessee was held entitled to the deduction.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee was ineligible for deduction under section 54F on the ground that he owned more than one residential house at the time of transfer of the original asset.

Analysis: The property relied upon by the Revenue was found, on the basis of the sale deed, photographs and purchaser's affidavit, to be open land of inhabitation without any existing residential structure at the time of sale. The Tribunal accepted that the mere historical description or earlier valuation of the property did not establish the existence of a habitable residential house at the relevant time. Since the property could not be treated as a residential house, the statutory condition for denial of deduction under section 54F was not attracted.

Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to deduction under section 54F, and the Revenue's challenge failed.

---