TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (1) TMI 1226
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r, subsequently in the Rohan Agarwal v. Asst. CIT (Miscellaneous Application No. 117/Jaipur/2018 vide order dated May 7, 2019) the Tribunal has recalled the earlier order for fresh hearing and adjudication of the appeal of the assessee. The relevant findings of the Tribunal in the miscellaneous application order dated May 7, 2019 in para 5 are as under : "5. Having considered the rival submissions as well as the relevant material on record we note that the assessee has relied upon the various decisions as reiterated in the miscellaneous application. As regards to mistake No. 1 the copies of the decisions relied upon by the assessee are also on record of the appeal file and those decisions have some relevance on the issue of allowing the d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the case in confirming the allowance of the deduction claimed under section 54F up to Rs. 17,18,127 only as against the deduction claimed by the appellant of Rs, 46,93,353 and thus, thereby confirming the denial of deduction of Rs. 29,13,226. The confirmation of the part denial of the deduction made by the Assessing Officer, being contrary to the provisions of law and facts, the rest amount of deduction also kindly be allowed. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) further erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in not considering all the four plots purchased as one single unit even though the appellant admittedly constructed a new residential house on one piece of land, which is contrary to the provision of law a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to be considered as against the Assessing Officer taken only one plot of land. He has further contended that the Assessing Officer has not disputed the fact that the assessee has constructed a boundary wall covering all the four plots and only one gate exists for entry in the plot of land. Therefore, at the site what is in existence is one plot of land and a residential house. Therefore, the learned authorised representative has submitted that the deduction under section 54F should be allowed in respect of the cost of acquisition of the entire land and cost of construction of the house thereupon. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the following decisions : (i) Seema Singh Beniwal v. Dy. CIT [2016] 45 ITR (Trib) 664 (Jaipur) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sing Officer has verified these facts through his inspector who filed the report which has been reproduced by the Assessing Officer at page 10 of the assessment order as under : Thus it is clear from the report of the inspector that on physical verification only one boundary wall was constructed around four plots and one entrance gate was left towards the road. The inspector has specified that for all these merged plots only one entrance gate is made in the boundary wall though the construction of the house is on one of the four plots. When these facts are not in dispute that the assessee purchased all these four adjoining plots of land on a single day and then merged them by constructing one boundary wall around them leaving only one ent....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of land is a part of residential house for claiming of deduction under section 54F of the Act. The Revenue itself has admitted that it is a habitable as a servant quarter, which in other words, was habitable for human being either servant or master or any employee. There is also no restriction that what percentage of the size of flat should be used for residential purposes either under the Income-tax law but there is a restriction of maximum construction by the local authorities of the respective States. As per the JDA law a room with toilet, kitchen and electric connection is sufficient compliance of construction of house on plot allotted by the JDA. The case law relied on by the authorised representative, i.e., CIT v. Dr. R. Balaji [2014....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....espect of four different portions of the property did not materially affect the nature of the transaction or the nature of the property acquired since the property in question was being used by the assessee for her own purposes and investment made in the purchase of the same was therefore eligible for deduction under section 54. In the light of the above finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal no question of law much less a substantial question of law arises for our consideration in this appeal." The finding of the Tribunal that the property though purchased from two different persons by virtue of four different sale instances in the shape of four different parcels of land, constitutes one single residential unit or house of the assessee....