TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (6) TMI 451
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....grossly erred and was unjustified in not allowing roll over benefit U/s 54 of the IT Act of Rs. 36,63,880/- towards investment in more than one residential flat for personal use of assessee but restricting it to Rs. 17,48,980/- for one residential flat only." The assessee has also raised an additional ground, which is reproduced as under:- "That the ld CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of Assessing Officer in taking the value of sale consideration at Rs. 62,63,250/- U/s 50C(2) and not Rs. 60.00 lacs being actual sales consideration for claiming exemption U/s 54 of the Act. 2. The assessee filed return on 30/09/2009 declaring total income of Rs. 4,90,050/-. The case was scrutinized U/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as the Act) on 26/12/2011. The assessee is an individual enjoying income from H.R. consultancy in the name and style of M/s Jaipur events, M/s Global Careers & M/s Fortune Management Consultants. All the grounds of the assessee's appeal as well as additional ground are against calculating the capital and allowing deduction U/s 54 of the Act. The ld Assessing Officer observed that during the year under consideration, the assess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aken higher value which is not acceptable. She further requested to refer this matter for valuation. Accordingly, he referred the matter to DVO, Agra, who valued the property of assessee's share at Rs. 62,63,250/-. Further the matter was also referred for ascertaining the fair market value (in short the FMV) as on 01/4/1981, which was claimed by the assessee at Rs. 1,92,282/-. Whereas the DVO had valued FMV as on 01/4/1981 at Rs. 1,28,700/-. No further construction was reported by the assessee's valuer or by the departmental valuer. After getting the DVO's report, the ld Assessing Officer again gave the reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The show cause letter has been reproduced by the Assessing Officer on page No. 3 and 4 of the assessment order. Before the ld Assessing Officer, the assessee submitted that the FMV valued by the DVO is based on estimation and difference between the sale consideration shown by the assessee and value determined by the DVO is less than 5%, therefore, it could be ignored because the DVO estimated the FMV. The assessee also challenged the FMV taken by the Assessing Officer from the DVO as on 01/4/1981. The assessee also submitted tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mption U/s 54F or 54EC since she could have never envisaged that his sale consideration would be enhanced from Rs. 60.00 lacs to Rs. 62,63,250/- by relying on the various decisions of the Hon'ble ITAT. However, the ld CIT(A) found favourable decision of Hon'ble Mumbai High Court in the case of Bhatia Nagar Premises Cooperative Society Ltd. Vs Union of India (2010-TIOL-600-HC-Mumbai). Therefore, he taken sale value of consideration for computing of capital gain at Rs. 62,63,250/- in place of Rs. 60.00 lacs. He further had not allowed the deduction U/s 54F on two flats purchased by the assessee bearing No B-6/355, Chitrakoot Nagar, Jaipur purchased on 16/02/2009 and flat No. D-6/303, Chitrakoot Nagar, Jaipur purchased on 27/4/2009 which were located very near to each other by considering the favourable decision on this issue by the various Hon'ble High Courts as well as ITAT. He has considered the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court decision in the case of Pawan Arya Vs CIT 49 DTR 123, decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs Smt. K.G. Rukminiamma 331 ITR 211 and decision of Hon'ble Pune Bench in the case of Gopal D. Shetty Vs ITO 298 ITR AT 049. The case la....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... deduction U/s 50C, the sale consideration shown by the assessee is to be considered while computing the capital gain as held by the various Hon'ble ITATs as well as Hon'ble High Courts. It is further argued that the assessee is also entitled for deduction U/s 54F of the Act on two flats. However, the ld CIT(A) even considering the various decisions in favour of the assessee had allowed the deduction under this Section on one flat. He has referred the various decisions on this issue i.e. CIT Vs K.G. Rukminianna (2011) 331 ITR 211 wherein it has been held that a residential house is used in Section 54 does not convey the meaning of a single residential house. The singular, a residential house, also permits use of plural by virtue of section 13(2) of the General Clauses Act. Therefore, deduction U/s 54 can be allowed to more than one residential property. He further relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bajaj Tempo Ltd. Vs CIT 196 ITR 188 wherein it has been held that interpretation of Section 54 is to be made literally to allow deduction on more than one residential unit. He further relied on the following case laws:- (i) CIT Vs Gita Duggal ....