1982 (4) TMI 206

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sment year 1973-74. The question is whether for eligibility to section 54 relief (profit on sale of property used for residence), the assessee should stay in the newly constructed house for a minimum period of three years. The assessee sold a residential house. Later she, within a period of two years, constructed a house for the purpose of her own residence. It was constructed in 1974. It was then....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....this section is not correct. So, he allowed the relief to the assessee. Hence, the departmental appeal. 3. The ITO while preferring this appeal has developed his case still further. He seems to have now realised that two years' residence insisted by him is too short a period and that actually it should be three years. In ground 4 before us, it is stated as follows: "The AAC failed to appreci....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s interpretation of the section is not correct. 6. In this connection section 155(8) may be referred to. There also there is nothing to support the Income-tax Officer's view...." 4. It is not known whether the case of the department is that three years continuous residence is a requirement of law for eligibility of relief under section 54, or whether it is only a factual element or a factual....