TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (10) TMI 994
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....less Appeal Centre [CIT(A)] under Section 250 of the Act 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....earned CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts, by passing an order without adjudicating on all the grounds of appeal raised (including the ground on conversion of company into LLP 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. 23,46,81,043/-. The assessee submitted that, the gain was invested in residential property subsequently, which was entirely tax free. It is submitted that assessee had furnished all relevant details/documents in support of the claim including the conversion 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dered and the claim of deduction under section 54/54F was allowed. The Ld.AR submitted that the intention of the assessee from the beginning was to have a bigger flat. Since the builder originally obtained approval in the form of two independent units, the agreement 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. S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r cross appeal. It is noted that the said letter of approval from 'MHADA' was received by the assessee after passing of the assessment order and, therefore, the Ld.AO did not have an occasion to go through the revised plan. In our opinion, the Ld.CIT(A) has a co-terminus power and is fully equipped with the authority 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d "any" are ambiguous and, therefore, the meaning of these words has to be seen with reference to the context in which these words are used" Further, it was held that "The word "any" has been used by the Legislature in sections 54B, 54D, 54E, 54EA and 54EB while as the word "a" has been used in sections 54 and 54F of the Act. This clearly shows that the Legislature intended different meanings to be given to these two words. A close reading of these sections shows that the Legislature intended to allow exemption in respect of investment in more than one asset by using the word "any". 4.8. Hon'ble Special Bench in the above referred decision focused their discussion on the word "a" and held that exemption under section 54/54F would be available in respect of one house only. But where two houses joint together constitutes a single unit for residence, then exemption under section 54 would be available to such joint residential house. Hon'ble Special Bench, also noted that, where two units are distantly situated, then it could not constitute to be "a residential house" and, therefore, exemption under section 54 will be available only to one residential house at the option of the asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....encement certificate issued by MHADA under no.MH/EE/(BP)/GM/ MHADA- 105/092/2019 dtd. 15.10.2019 4. Application Letter for Amended plans to Sale Wing SC from M/s. Miti. dtd. 11/09/2020 and 08.10.2020. Certified Tue Copy With reference to your application dated 11/09/2020, for development permission and grant approval for amended plan for redevelopment of "N. Nagar CHS Union Ltd - Lessee of MHADA" on plot bearing CTS (Manish D. at D.N. Nagar, Andheri (W).Mumbai under Architecfgulation no. 33(5) of DCR. 1) The Building Permit is granted subject to compliance of mentioned in IOD dated 26-12-2011 and following conditions: All the conditions of 1.0.D. issued by MCGM under no. CE/8871/WS/AK dated 26/12/2011 shall be applicable and should be complied with. गृहनिरà¥à¤®à¤¾à¤£ à¤à¤µà¤¨, कलानगर, वांदà¥à¤°à¥‡ (पूरà¥à¤µ), मà¥à¤‚बई ४०००५१ दूरधà¥à¤µà¤¨à¥€ ६६४०५००० नं. ....