TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (8) TMI 1735
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...."1. The order of the lower authority is contrary to law, facts and evidences on record. 2. The lower authorities erred in disallowing the exemption U/s.54 F in respect of sale consideration of Rs. 56,22,000/- on the ground that the exemption is confined to only to one property and one transaction. 3. The learned lower authorities failed to appreciate in the facts and circumstances of the case as established by judicial decision, the two adjacent properties has to be considered as one only. 4. Without prejudice to the above the provisions of section 54 F does not place any restriction on owning of nonresidential property /commercial property as it is clear from the proviso to the said section and the provisions of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) but without success and now the assessee is in further appeal before us. 4. The ld. AR of assessee placed reliance on the Tribunal order rendered in the case of Smt. Hemalatha Chandran Vs. ITO in ITA No. 603/Mds/2015 dated 01.04.2016 for Assessment Year 2011-12 and rendered in the case of ACIT Vs. Shri Mohinder Kumar Jain in ITA No. 5254/Del/2014 dated 04.08.2017 for Assessment Year 2011-12. He submitted a copy of both these Tribunal orders. He also placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of CIT & Another Vs. Smt. K.G. Rukminiamma as reported in [2011] 331 ITR 211 (Karn). He submitted a copy of this judgment also and pointed out that this was held by Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ngle single residential units. But in the case of the assessee the issue is completely different. 7. The assessee has purchased Property No. 1, a commercial property through a Sale Deed dated 24.9.1998 registered as 1392/ 98-98 measuring 696 sqft. He has also purchased another commercial property i.e. Property No.2 by means of a Sale deed dated 24.9.1998 registered as 1390/ 98-99 measuring 695 sq.ft. These two commercial properties have been sold by the assessee by means of two separate Sale Deed vide document No. 2610/ 11-12 dated 27.3.2012 and document No. 2611/ 11-12 dated 27.3.2012. It is pertinent to note here that the properties purchased by the assessee were two different properties purchased by means of two separate Registe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iod of three years after that date, constructed a residential house, then instead of capital gain being charged to income tax as income of the previous year in which the transfer took place, it shall be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of this section; 8. The section is very clear regarding the fact that it is the capital gain from 'a' long term capital asset and the assessee has claimed exemption on two properties which is not the intention of legislation. In view of the above, the assessee is not entitled for exemption under sec, 54F in respect two properties and the exemption is restricted to one transaction and the exemption claimed amounting on sale of property amounting to Rs. 56,22,000/- is disallowed." ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the total capital gain received on sale of two commercial properties and it is not allowable because it is not permissible u/s. 54F of the IT Act. Now at this juncture, we reproduce para no. 10 of the judgment of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of CIT & Another Vs. Smt. K.G. Rukminiamma (supra). "10. The context in which the expression 'a residential house' is used in s. 54 makes it clear that, it was not the intention of the legislation to convey the meaning that it refers to a single residential house. If that was the intention, they would have used the word "one". As in the earlier part, the words used are buildings or lands which are plural in number and that is referred to as "a residential....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on this, this was the finding of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in this para that the term 'a residential house' used in section 54 makes it clear that it is not to convey the meaning that it refers to a single residential house. Hence in our considered opinion, the issue in the present case is squarely covered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue by this judgment of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court and respectfully following the same, we hold that the authorities below were not justified in rejecting the claim of the assessee for deduction u/s. 54F on this basis that the assessee has sold two commercial properties and claimed deduction u/s. 54F of the IT Act. There is no other objection of the authorities below regarding th....