TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (3) TMI 145
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed order from the CIT(A) on 15.10.2019, and the appeal should have been filed on or before 15.12.2019, within 60 days from the service of order. However, the appellant could able to file appeal on 25th March, 2022 with a delay of 832 days and said delay covered by Covid and non-Covid period. The reasons for delay of filing appeal is neither intentional nor to derive any undue benefit, but due to circumstances beyond the control of the assessee. Therefore, the delay in filing appeal may be condoned. 3. The ld. DR, on the other hand strongly opposing petition filed by the assessee submitted that, even if you exclude the delay covered by Covid period, still there is a delay of 117 days in filing appeal, which could not be explained by the assessee with necessary reasons. Although, assessee claims to have underwent some surgeries and was under medical treatment, but said claim was not substantiated. Therefore, delay should not be condoned. 4. We have heard both the parties and considered relevant contents of petition filed by the assessee for condonation of delay. As explained by the assessee, although there is a delay of 832 days in filing of appeal, 715 days is covered under Covid ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct that the case laws quoted in the order by the department were not relevant and not applicable to the facts of the case of the assessee. 5.The learned Commissioner(Appeals) ought to have appreciated the fact that the assessee demolished the old building only to raise a new housing complex in the and recovered after the demolision of the old building and the case laws quoted in the order are distinguishable from the facts of the assessee 's case. 6.The learned Commissioner(Appeals} ought to have appreciated the fact that the building compulsorily acquired for the Metro Project by the Railway department was only a residential building and since one residential building is replaced by a new residential building containing in its body 13 independent residential flats the denial of exemption under section 54 is not correct. 7.The learned Commissioner(Appeals) ought to have appreciated the fact that the land remained the same and the entire land remained in the hands of the assessee only and further exemption under section 54 is available for land also. 8.The learned Commissioner(Appeals) ought to have appreciated the fact that exemption is claimed under section 54 and not ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd and building by deducting indexed cost of acquisition and indexed cost of improvement and arrived at long term capital gains of Rs. 1,77,03,112/-. The assessee had also claimed exemption u/s. 54 of the Act, for purchase of another residential house property on 30.08.2012 for Rs. 1,27,03,112/-. The assessee had also claimed exemption u/s. 54EC of the Act for Rs. 50 lakhs, for amount invested in fixed deposit with nationalized bank. Thus, the assessee has computed taxable long term capital gains at Rs. Nil. 7. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO called upon the assessee to file necessary evidences including justification for claim of exemption u/s. 54 of the Act. The AO, on the basis of evidences filed by the assessee and also by conducting independent enquiries including report of inspector of Income-tax, opined that the assessee is not entitled for exemption u/s. 54 of the Act, because the new house purchased by the assessee is having multiple units with separate kitchen etc. The AO, further noted that the assessee had also purchased one more property at Aminjikarai, Chennai on 12.12.2013 for a sum of Rs. 35 lakhs. Although, said property is eligible for exempti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le from assessment year 2015-16 onwards. In this regard, he relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Madras in the case of G. Chinnadurai vs ITO [2016] 74 Taxmann.com 227 (Mad). The assessee had also relied upon the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Arun K. Thiagarajan vs CIT [2020] 427 ITR 190 (Kar). 10. The Ld. DR, on the other hand supporting the order of the CIT(A) submitted that, the assessee is not entitled for exemption u/s. 54 of the Act, because the original asset sold by the assessee is not a residential house property. Further, the assessee is also not entitled for exemption u/s. 54F of the Act, because new house purchased by the assessee is having multiple units, which is evident from the report of inspector. The DR, further submitted that the assessee is also not eligible for exemption u/s. 54F of the Act, in respect of house property purchased at Aminjikarai, because at the time of transfer of original asset, the assessee was having more than one residential house property. Therefore, he submitted that there is no error in the reasons given by the AO to deny the benefit of exemption u/s 54 of the Act and their order sh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the assessee is entitled for exemption u/s. 54 of the Act. As regards, the observations of the AO with regard to 'a residential house property', in light of amendment of provisions of section 54(1) by Finance Act, 2014 w.e.f. 01.04.2015, we find that before substitution of 'a residential house' by Finance Act. 2014 w.e.f. 01.04.2015, various courts have interrupted the term 'a residential house' as referred u/s. 54(1) of the Act, to mean one residential house which can have several independent residential units, as held by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Gita Duggal [2015] 228 Taxman 62 (SC). A similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Arun K. Thiagarajan vs CIT (supra), where it has been clearly held that for the purpose of allowing benefit of exemption u/s. 54(1), expression 'a residential house' includes within its ambit plural numbers as well and thus, it cannot be construed as one residential house only. The Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of G. Chinnadurai vs ITO (supra), has considered an identical issue and held that the expression 'a residential house should not be taken to convey meaning that it refers to a 'single....