TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (10) TMI 994
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on the following grounds: Ground 1: General 1. The order of the learned CIT(A) is based on incorrect application of facts and wrong interpretation of law and therefore, is bad in law. 2. The learned CIT(A) has erred in directing the learned AO verify the additional evidence and grant relief instead of granting the full relief to the Appellant. Ground 2: Disallowance of exemption claimed under section 54F of the Act 3. The learned CIT(A)/AO have failed to appreciate that purchase of one residential house with modifications of two adjacent properties would amount to single residential house and therefore, the Appellant was eligible for exemption under section 54F of the Act. 4. The Ld. AO has erred in law and in facts, in stating that the Appellant had purchased two residential house properties instead of a single residential house without appreciating that merging of two adjacent properties to one residential house is not a violation of condition for claiming exemption under section 54F of the Act 5. The learned CIT(A)/AD has failed to appreciate the fact that the Appellant had always intended to purchase one residential unit and has in fact purchased one house for the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....P is not a taxable transfer) Ground 5: Levy of interest under Section 234A and 2348 of the Act 14. The learned CIT(A) / AO has erred in law and on facts, in levying additional interest under Section 234A and Section 2348 of the Act, having regard to the assessed income. Ground 6: Initiation of penalty proceedings under section Act 15. The learned CIT(A)/AO has erred in law in initiating penalty proceedings under section 2704 of the Act The Appellant submits that each of the above grounds is independent and without prejudice to one another. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, vary, omit or substitute any of the aforesaid grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal, so as to enable the Hon'ble Tribunal to decide on the appeal in accordance with law." Revenue's Appeal : I.T.A. No.2833/Mum/2024 "1 (a) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in directing the AO to allow the deduction u/s. 54F of the Act in respect of purchase of new asset when the assessee has purchased another residential house other than the new asset within one year after the transfer of original asset violating the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nversion certificate of the company into LLP, accounts of Binary Life Technology Pvt Ltd and the details of investment made by the assessee in the residential property. 2.3. The Ld.AO observed that, the assessee claimed deduction under section 54F and purchased two flats, one being 1402 & the other being 1401 in Terra West C, Rustomjee Elements, New D.N. Nagar, Andheri (W), Mumbai. The Ld.AO was of the opinion that the assessee violated the provisions of section 54F by purchasing two flats as against one as required under section 54F. The Ld.AO thus recomputed the claim of assessee by disallowing the long term capital gain invested in both the flats. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.AO, assessee preferred appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). 2.4. Before the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee filed various documents like the revised plan approved by 'MHADA', wherein, the two flats were considered to be one single unit adjacent to each other. The Ld.CIT(A), after considering the documents filed by the assessee allowed the claim in respect of one of the houses on pro-rata basis and directed the Ld.AO to re-compute the deduction under section 54F of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was entered separately. And subsequently, the plan was amended. It is for this reason that the assessee purchased two contiguous and adjacent units in order to convert into one single unit. He thus prayed for the exemption to be granted in totality, based on the above facts. In support of the above, heavy reliance is placed on the following decisions passed by coordinate benches of this Tribunal, considering the amendment brought in with effect from 01/04/2015 to section 54F:- 1. Bhaskar Pratapari Shah vs DCIT - ITA No.3698/Mum/2023 2. Ms. Anita Mahindrakumar Oberoi vs Income Tax Officer - ITA No.600/PUN/2020 3. Bhatkal Ramrao Prakash vs Income-tax Officer (2019) 102 taxmann.com 145 (Bangalore-Trib) 4. Suruchi Jena vs ACIT, Circle-3(1), Partyakha Bhawan, Bhubaneswar ITA No.207/CTK/2024) 5. Mohd. Hassan vs ACIT, Circle, Nagpur - ITA No.74/Jodh/2020 6. Mohammad Anif. Sultanali Pradhan v The DICT, Circle 6, (ITA No.1797/Ahd/2018 3.3. On the contrary, the Ld.DR vehemently opposed the arguments and submissions made by the assessee. He submitted that there is nothing on record brought by the assessee to establish his intention to purchase one single unit. The Ld.DR submitte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to verify additional documents filed before him. We therefore do not find any force in the argument of the Ld.DR against the Ld.CIT(A) considering the revised plan issued by MHADA. 4.4. The claim of the assessee in the present fact is that assessee purchased two flats to be used as a single dwelling unit which is discernible from the plan reapproved by MHADA vide letter dated 24/11/2020. Admittedly, there is a change in the legal position with effect from 01/04/2015, wherein the assessee can claim exemption under section 54F only on acquisition of one residential house. In the present facts of the case, the revised plan dated 24/11/2020 clearly establish that the two flats though independently purchased by the assessee adjacent to each other was converted to be used as a single unit. 4.5. Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in case of CIT vs Suresh Rao reported in (2014) 41 taxmann.com 475 considered similar situation wherein the significance of the expression "held" used by the legislature was analysed and explained in a great length. Further, Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Raman Kumar Suri reported in 2012 (12 TMI 421) observed that, when two flats were joined togeth....