TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 1017
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....come Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as, "Act"] for Assessment Year 2015-16. The assessment order in this appeal is passed by the Assessing Officer [for short, AO] under section 143(3) of the Act. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- 1. That assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter as "the Act") dated 26.12.2017 and the disallowances/additions made therein by the Assessing Officer (hereinafter as "A.O.") and as upheld by the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals (hereinafter as "CIT(Appeals)") are illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction. 2. That, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, CIT(Appeals) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ially interpreted and the same do not justify the addition made. 8. That the additions made are based on mere surmises and conjunctures and the same cannot be justified by any material on record and against the principle of natural of justice. 9. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter and/or delete any of the above grounds of appeal at or before the time of hearing. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed the return of Income for the assessment year 2015-16 on 28-08-2015 declaring total Income of Rs. 8,16,200/-. Thereafter assessee filed a revised return on 07-09-2015 declaring total income of Rs. 8,16,200/-. The total income of the assessee constitutes Income from LTCG and Income from Other Sour....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....apital gain. 5. Aggrieved the assessee is before us. 6. Before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee stated that for AY 2015-16, deduction u/s. 54 was granted to the co-owner Manju Bansal of the same property. 7. Per contra the ld DR relied on the orders of the AO/CIT(A). 8. We have heard the rival submissions and have perused the relevant material on record. Brief facts of the instant appeal is part denial of deduction against long term capital gain u/s. 54 of the Act from sale of residential house at East Punjabi Bagh Delhi. The Ld AO considered the investment in Ground and 1st Floor as two separate "residential house" instead of "a residential house" as provided in section 54 of the Act and restricted deduction u/s. 54 only fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y and independently used as an independent residence, the requirement of the section should be taken to have been satisfied. There is nothing in these sections which require the residential house to be constructed in a particular manner. The only requirement is that it should be for the residential use and not for commercial use. If there is nothing in the section which requires that the residential house should be built in a particular manner, it seems to us that the Income-tax authorities cannot insist upon that requirement. A person may construct a house according to his plans and requirements. Most of the houses are constructed according to the needs and requirements and even compulsions. For instance, a person may construct a residenti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cision in CIT v. Geeta Duggal, (supra), and held that in certain circumstances, multiple residential units may be considered as a single residential house for the purposes of exemption under Section 54F of the Act. The court observed as follows: - "39. This assumes significance in the backdrop of our opinion that the word 'a' used in Section 54F of the Act denotes one singular residence, along with the caveat that in case the floors or houses are so constructed as to be used as one singular unit or capable of being used as such, they may fall within the definition of a residential house." 24. The Madras High Court also held a similar view in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Gumanmal Jain: 2017 SCC OnLine Mad 13653. ....