TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (7) TMI 632
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....concise grounds of appeal which read as under: - 1. The order of Ld. CIT(A) is contrary to law, facts, evidence on record; opposed to principles of natural justice, fair procedure and legitimate expectation; erred in denying relief u/s 54 F of the Act 2. Deduction u/s 54F of the Act in respect of construction of residential house. (a) The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the appellant qualifies for relief u/s 54F of the Income Tax Act since he has constructed only one house and did not own more than one house u/s 54F(b) of the Act at the time of sale of property. (b) The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the decisions in the cases of - Gita Duggal, V.R.Karpagam, Abhijit Bhandari, Ms. Sushma M.Jhaveri (ITAT Mumbai). 3. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he explanatory notes to the Finance Bill was as follows: - 20.3. Certain courts had interpreted that the exemption is also available if investment is made in more than one residential house. The benefit was intended for investment in one residential house within India. Accordingly, sub-section (1) of Section 54 of the Income-tax Act has been amended to provide that the rollover relief under the said section is available if the investment is made in one residential house situated in India. The Finance Act, 2019 has further amended the said provision with effect from 01/04/2020 to provide that in case of capital gain not exceeding Rs.2 Crores, deduction shall be available even against investment in two residential houses in India. 4. Inte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ied only prospectively with effect from AY 2015-16 since it took note of the judicial precedents for period prior to 01/04/2015. 5. On the basis of above, it could be observed that post amendment, the deduction has specifically been restricted by legislature to the extent of investment made in one residential house only, notwithstanding the facts and circumstances of the case. Proceedings before lower authorities 6.1 In the instance case before us, the assessee sold an industrial shed along with land for Rs.260 Lacs and invested the same for construction of residential house at Koramangala, Bangalore. The assessee was already owner of a residential house in Hosur in which he was residing. After perusal of documents, it was noted by Ld. A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....upon the amended provisions of Sec.54F, Ld. AO held that the deduction would not be available to the assessee. The alternative submissions to allow proportionate deduction was also denied on the grounds that the assessee had constructed 5 residential houses (one house occupied by the assessee and 4 houses occupied by the tenants) apart from one residential house already in the possession of the assessee at Hosur. 6.4 Lastly, as against sale consideration of Rs.260 Lacs, the assessee had invested only Rs.249.98 Lacs. Therefore, the assessee would have otherwise eligible for proportionate deduction of Rs.244.30 Lacs as against the claim of Rs.249.98 Lacs. Finally, the deduction of Rs.249.98 Lacs was denied to the assessee. The stand of Ld. A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the same is not the intention of the legislature. The only requirement is that the assessee should make investment in one residential house. The conclusion of Ld. AO overlooks the fact that the multi-storied building was subjected to one property tax assessment and pertinently, it has one door number only. In our considered opinion, there is nothing in the statutory provisions which debar the assessee to make separate independent livable units on a single piece of land or obtain more than one electricity connection to claim the deduction. There is also not a condition that the property should be, at all times, used exclusively by the owner himself for his own residential purposes and the same could not be let out. As long as the property i....