Shri Ravjibhai Gordhanbhai Prajapati, Ahmedabad V. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad

CO 11/AHD/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9118 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 10-01-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 09-01-2020
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 23-01-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: PF JAIN
• Keywords: Benefit of exemption
• Section: 54F

Judgement Text

, - IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH C BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER CROSS OBJECTION NO.11/AHD/2017 IN ./ ITA NO. 3038/AHD/2016 / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 ACIT, CENT.CIR.1(2) AHMEDABAD. VS SHRI RAVJIBHAI GORDHANBHAI PRAJAPATI 2-3, GORDHAN BUNGALOW NR. KASTURI FLAT THALTEJ-SHILAJ ROAD THALTEJ, AHMEDABAD 380 059. PAN : APRPP 0713 R CROSS OBJECTION NO.12/AHD/2017 IN ./ ITA NO. 3039/AHD/2016 / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 ACIT, CENT.CIR.1(2) AHMEDABAD. VS SHRI VITHHALBHAI GORDHANBHAI PRAJAPATI 2-3, GORDHAN BUNGALOW NR. KASTURI FLAT THALTEJ-SHILAJ ROAD THALTEJ, AHMEDABAD 380 059. PAN : AFZPP 0251 L / (APPELLANT) / (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI P.F. JAIN, AR REVENUE BY : SHRI SANJEEV JAIN, CIT-DR / DATE OF HEARING : 09/01/2020 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10/01/2020 CO NO.11 & 12/AHD/2016 - 2 O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER : VIDE SEPARATE ORDERS DATED 22.8.2016, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS DECIDED A PPEALS OF THE CROSS-OBJECTORS AGAINST WHICH REVENUE FILED ITA NO. 3038 AND 3039/AHD/2016. ON RECEIPT OF NOTICES, THE RESPONDEN TS I.E. CROSS- OBJECTORS HAVE FILED CROSS OBJECTION BEARING CO NO. 11 AND 12/AHD/2017. 2. IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT APPEALS OF THE REVENUE WERE DISMISSED BY THE TRIBUNAL ON GROUND THAT TAX E FFECT BY VIRTUE OF RELIEF GIVEN BY THE LD.CIT(A) WAS LESS THAN RS.5 0 LAKHS IN EACH APPEAL. THEREFORE, WE ARE REQUIRED TO DISPOSE OF C OS FILED BY THE ASSESSEES. 3. WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF THE LD.REPRESENTATIVES, W E HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY. A SHORT DISPUTE INVO LVED IN BOTH THE COS IS, WHETHER THE ASSESSEES ARE ENTITLED FOR EXEM PTION UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE ACT ON TWO BUNGALOWS AS CLAIMED BY THEM. 4. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEES H AVE PURCHASED TWO BUNGALOWS BEARING NOS.4 AND 5 IN GORDHAN BUNGAL OWS AT THALTEJ. THESE ARE TWO JOINT BUNGALOWS. ASSESSEES HAVE CLAIMED EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE ACT. THE AO TRE ATED BOTH THESE CO NO.11 & 12/AHD/2016 - 3 BUNGALOWS AS SEPARATE UNIT AND ALLOWED DEDUCTION ON LY QUA ONE BUNGALOW. APPEAL TO THE CIT(A) DID NOT BRING ANY R ELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, ON THE STRENGTH OF DECISION OF SPECIAL BENCH IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. SU SHILA M. JHAVERI, 107 ITD 327, AND ON THE STRENGTH OF HOSTS OF OTHER DECISIONS RELIED BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) CONTENDED THAT AFTER CONSIDERA TION OF VARIOUS JUDGMENTS, SPECIAL BENCH HAS OPINED THAT IF TWO ADJ ACENT OR CONTINUOUS UNITS ARE CONVERTED INTO ONE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE HAVING COMMON PASSAGE, COMMON KITCHEN AND INTENDED TO BE U SED AS SINGLE USE FOR THE PURPOSE OF FAMILY, THEN THE INVE STMENT IN MORE THAN ONE CONTINUOUS UNIT IS ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION. ON THE STRENGTH OF THIS DECISION, HE SUBMITTED THAT THOUGH NUMERICA LLY THESE ARE BUNGALOW NOS.4 AND 5, BUT FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASSESS EES FAMILY, IT WAS ONE RESIDENTIAL UNIT. THEY WERE LIVING TOGETHE R. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD.DR RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE REVEN UE AUTHORITIES. 5. ON DUE CONSIDERATION OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRC UMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT SPECIAL BENCH IN THE CASE O F SUSHILA M. JHAVERI (SUPRA) HAS CONSIDERED PRACTICAL DIFFICULTI ES FACED BY JOINT FAMILY IN ACQUIRING NEW BIG HOUSE. IT HAS BEEN LAI D DOWN THAT IF TWO ADJACENT OR CONTINUOUS UNITS ARE CONVERTED INTO ONE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE BY HAVING COMMON PASSAGE AND COMMON KITCHEN A ND INTENDING TO BE USED AS A SINGLE HOUSE, THEN EXEMPT ION UNDER SECTION 54F CAN BE GRANTED. IN THE PRESENT CASE AL SO, THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED TWO ADJACENT HOUSE. THE AO HAS NOT V ISITED THE SITE CO NO.11 & 12/AHD/2016 - 4 FOR HOLDING THAT THESE ARE INDEPENDENT UNITS. HE S IMPLY OBSERVED AS SUCH ON THE STRENGTH OF LAY OUT OF THE BUILDER. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING ORDERS OF THE SPECIAL BENCH, WE TREAT BUN GALOW NOS.4 AND 5 AS SINGLE UNIT, AND HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEES ARE E NTITLED FOR EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY , COS FILED BY THE ASSESSEES ARE ALLOWED AND DIRECT THE AO TO GRAN T BENEFIT OF EXEMPTIONS UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE ACT. 6. IN THE RESULT, BOTH CROSS OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSE SSEES ARE ALLOWED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 10 TH JANUARY, 2020 SD/- SD/- (WASEEM AHMED) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (RAJPAL YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER