TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (8) TMI 477
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ction 54F to a single flat. 2. Facts apropos are that assessee had entered into an agreement with one M/s. Mount Housing and Infrastructure Ltd., for development of a piece of land measuring 13,059 sq. ft. owned by her at door No.29F, Race Course, Coimbatore. As per the agreement, assessee was to receive 43.75% of built up area after the development. This 43.75% of the built up area translated to five flats. Assessee, while filing her return, calculated the capital gains based on a sale consideration of Rs. 1,09,75,620/-. As per assessee, this was the value of the flats, which were to be received by her and was equivalent to 56.25% of the undivided share of land given by her to M/s. Mount Housing and Infrastructure Ltd., Assessee also cl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eligible for exemption under section 54F of the Act. According to him, reliance placed by the assessee on the decision of Bangalore bench, this Tribunal in the case of D. Anand Basappa v. ITO [2004] 91 ITD 53 was misplaced. According to him, the said case was in relation to an exemption claimed under section 54 of the Act and not under section 54F of the Act. Ld. CIT(A) relying on para 7.2 of the said judgement, held that Tribunal itself had made out a distinction between a deduction claimed under section 54 and a deduction claimed under section 54F of the Act. As per Ld. CIT(A), Sec.54F placed a clear bar on claiming deduction on more than one residential house. In this view of the matter, he was of the opinion that Assessing Officer was j....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the assessee in exchange of ownership over part of the land with building, based on a finding that these four flats were assessed as one unit with one door number. On the other hand, in assessee's case here, five flats were different residential units with different door numbers. Therefore, according to him, assessee could not take refuge under said decision and claim that exemption under section 54F should be given to all the flats. 6. We have perused the orders of the lower authorities and heard the rival contentions. There is no dispute that assessee was allotted five flats in lieu of her forgoing 56.75 % of the rights in 13,059 sq ft land and building therein. None of the authorities below has doubted the eligibility of the assessee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e transfer of any long-term capital asset, not being a residential house (hereafter in this section referred to as the original asset), and the assessee has, within a period of one year before or two years after the date on which the transfer took place purchased, or has within a period of three years after that date constructed, a residential house (hereafter in this section referred to as the new asset), the capital gain shall be dealt with in accordance with the following provisions of this section, that is to say, - (a) if the cost of the new asset is not less than the net consideration in respect of the original asset, the whole of such capital gain shall not be charged under section 45 ; &nbs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....estrict a claim under section 54F, if an assessee purchased a house or constructed any residential house other than a new asset. In our opinion, sub-proviso (i) of proviso (a), i.e. owning more than one residential house on the date of transfer of the original asset will come into play only where assessee had within a period of one year before the date of transfer constructed a residential house as mentioned in substantive portion of sub-section(1). New asset is clearly defined in the substantive portion, to mean 'a residential house'. Whether 'a residential house" can include only one flat or more than one flat was the issue considered by Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v. Smt. K.G. Rukminiamma (331 ITR 211). Relying on Sec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m for exemption was with regard to four flats in lieu of share in land, but the claim was under section 54 of the Act and not under section 54F of the Act. However, in our opinion the meaning given to the expression "a residential house" will apply paripassu to Sec.54F also, since the expression used here is also 'a residential house'. New asset defined in the sec.54F, as 'a residential house' has also to be understood in the plural. It is not necessary that all residential units should have a single door number allotted to it as argued by the Ld. D.R. No doubt Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of G. Saroja (supra) did consider the fact that different flats were having one door number. However, this alone was not the reason why ....