TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1986 (1) TMI 138
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sp; Flat No. Floor Name of purchaser --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 18-1-1979 25 2nd Appellant and his son Shri Dhairyawan 16-2-1979 35 &nbs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ner (Appeals) who held that exemption could not be allowed to the assessee with regard to the remaining flats since the appellant did not reside in the said three flats. It is against this order of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the appellant has come up in appeal to the Tribunal. 3. Shri V.R. Patil, the learned counsel for the assessee, contended that the provisions of section 54 as it stood before the amendment by the Finance Act, 1982, with effect from 1-4-1983 would be applicable to the facts of the present case, that the said provision of law requires the purchase of a house property within a period of one year after the sale of a residential house by an assessee and that in the present case all the four flats put together would constitute 'a house property' within the meaning of section 54. Shri Patil contended that they are not separate houses but parts of a single house as they were located in the same building, though on different floors. Shri Patil pointed out that flat Nos. 12 and 15 were located on first floor, while flat Nos. 25 and 32 were located on the second and third floors. He further submitted that the flat that was sold by the assessee on Altamount Road had a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uty Act, 1953 and pointed out that wherever the Parliament intended to restrict the allowance to one property, the Parliament had taken care to specify the same in express terms. The learned counsel argued that there was no such restriction in section 54(1). In support of this submission, Shri Patil relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Trustees of Gordhandas Govindram Family Charity Trust v. CIT [1973] 88 ITR 47, wherein it was held that singular includes plural. He also relied on the provisions of section 13 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. Finally, Shri Patil relied on the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Shiv Narain Chaudhari v. CWT [1977] 108 ITR 104 and submitted that this case directly supported his contentions for deduction, though it was a case under section 5(1)(iv). He also relied on the decision of the Calcutta High Court in B.B. Sarkar v. CIT [1981] 132 ITR 150. He, therefore, submitted that the departmental authorities erred in denying the relief claimed by the assessee under section 54. 4. Shri Prem Kumar, the learned departmental representative, relied on the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and pointed out that the intention of the assessee in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t, therefore, the assessee is the owner of all the four flats by these purchases. The department does not dispute that the assessee and his family members are living together in all these four flats with a common kitchen and a common ration card. We are told that two of the flats, viz., flat Nos. 12 and 15 are contiguous flats being on the first floor and that the remaining two flats, viz., flat Nos. 25 and 35 are on the second and third floors, respectively, of the same building. 6. In Shiv Narain Chaudhari's case, the Allahabad High Court had held that several self-contained dwelling units which are contiguous and situate in the same compound and within common boundaries and having unity of structure could be regarded as one house for the purpose of granting exemption under section 5(1)(iv). In the said case, the High Court granted exemption under section 5(1)(iv) in respect of four different independent residential units, which were connected by a common passage in a building owned by the assessee-HUF and bearing Municipal Door Nos. 92, 92A, Darbhanga Castle. Their Lordships held as follows: "The aforesaid decisions also support the view we have taken, namely, that a house may....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dential unit and does not mean an independent and complete house and that it takes into account all residential units, particularly in these days when multi-storied flats are becoming the order of the day. In the said case, the assessee sold a residential property valued at Rs. 1,02,000 and earned capital gains of Rs. 79,000. Within two years of the sale of the property he constructed a house for Rs. 96,500 which consisted of a ground floor, a first and a second floor. The assessee leased out the ground floor and used the first and second floors for his personal residence and claimed deduction of Rs. 57,600 under section 54 on the ground that part of the capital gains in respect of the sale of the property was used for construction of a new residential house property. Accepting the assessee's claim, their Lordships of the Gujarat High Court held that a substantial portion of the new house property was retained by the assessee for his personal purposes, and since the construction of the new building was completed within the statutory period of two years, both the conditions for grant of exemption were fulfilled and the assessee was entitled to prorata exemption under section 54 from....