2022 (10) TMI 940

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....-19/CIT(A)-15 dated 22.03.2019. The Assessment was framed by Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Non Corporate Circle-15(1), Chennai for the relevant Assessment Year 2013-14 vide order dated 21.12.2018 u/s. 143(3) r/w s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter 'the Act'). 2. At the outset, it is noticed that the appeal filed by Revenue is barred by limitation by 06 days. The revenue has filed affidavit for condonation of delay stating as under: "In this case, The Assistant commissioner of Income Tax, Non Corporate Circle15 (1), Chennai is directed to file an appeal to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal against the order of The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-15, Chennai in ITA NO '157/18-17 /CIT (A)-15 dated 22/03/201....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....superstructure alone was valued at Rs.3,75,000/-. 2.3 The Ld.CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the building on the housing plot was capable of habitation. 2.4 The Ld. CIT(A) erred in facts and law in holding that the assessee owned only one residential house. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee sold his ancestral land located at Muttukkadu Village near Chennai on 22.02.2013 for a sale consideration of Rs. 6.45 Crore. The assessee declared Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) at Rs. 6.44 Crore and out of that reinvested the above LTCG in two properties i.e., a vacant land at No.6, Ganesh Nagar, Sholinganallur for a sum of Rs. 26 Lakhs, and a residential house near Kalapakkam for a sum of Rs. 3.21 Crore. The....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on, it is beyond doubt that the said area had a house property which is liveable. (Any family is residing in the said house property or not is immaterial). With this the assesee is bound to have more than one house property during the time period of purchase of the 3rd house property and hence is ineligible to claim deduction u/s 54F." Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). 5. The CIT(A) held that the property purchased by the assessee i.e., Plot No.6, Ganesh Nagar is a vacant land and not house and hence, he allowed the claim of LTCG to the assessee by observing in paras 4.3.4 & 4.3.5 as under: "4.3.4 I have considered both the points of view. After perusal of revenue documents placed before the CIT(A) which....