Yashovardhan Sinha, V. I.T.O.,

ITA 116/PAT/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 93635 (ITAT-PATNA)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-06-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 13-08-2012
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ARCHANA PRASAD JR S C
• Keywords: Benefit of exemption
• Section: 54

Judgement Text

, PATNA IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PATNA BENCH, PATNA . . . , , BEFORE SHRI A.D. JAIN (JM) AND SHRI SANJAY ARORA (AM) ./ I.T.A. NO. 116 /PAT/201 2 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009 - 1 0 ) YASHOVARDHAN SINHA. 37, S. K. NAGAR, PATNA / VS. ITO WARD - 6(4), PATNA ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. ABXPS9060Q ( / APPELLANT ) : ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI NISHANT MAITIN, ADV / RESPONDENT BY : SMT. ARCHANA PRASAD, JR.S.C. / DATE OF HEARING : 20 .0 4 . 2015 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29 .0 6 .2015 / O R D E R PER SANJA Y ARORA, A. M.: THIS IS AN A PPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) , DHANBAD (CIT(A) FOR SHORT) DATED 29.06.2012 , PARTLY ALLOWING THE A SSESSEES APPEAL CONTESTING ITS ASSESSMENT U/S.143(3) OF THE INCO ME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT HEREINAFTER) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR (A.Y.) 2009 - 10 VIDE ORDER DATED 30.12.2011 . 2. THE APPEAL RAISES THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS, WHICH WE SHALL TAKE UP IN SERIATIM: 2 ITA NO. 116/PAT/2012 (A.Y. 2009 - 10) YASHOVARDHAN SINHA VS. ITO 1. THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT(APPEALS) - II IS UNJUST, UNWARR ANTED AND BAD IN LAW. 2. T HAT THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) II FAILED TO APPRECIATE AND/OR OVERLOOKED AND/OR DID NOT CONSIDER THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT AS ALSO THE OTHER FACTS OF THE CASE. 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(AP PEALS) - II ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITIONS OF RS.4,112/ - ON ACCOUNT OF INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. 4. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) - II ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.1 5 , 83 , 345 / - ON ACCOUNT OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AND NOT EXTENDING THE BENEFIT OF EXEMPTIONS AS ENVISAGED IN LAW. GROUNDS 1 AND 2 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE, WARRANTING NO ADJUDICATION, THE SAME ARE ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED AS NOT MAINTAINABLE. 3. T HE FACTS IN RELATION TO GROUND # 3 ARE THAT THE ASSESS EE WAS DENIED DEDUCTION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.4,112/ - , BEING INTEREST ON A HOUSING LOAN, IN THE COMPUTATION OF HIS INCOME U/S.22 OF THE ACT, I.E., UNDER THE HEAD OF INCOME INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE (A.R.), DURING HEARING , WOULD TAKE US THROUGH THE INTEREST CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE CONCERN ED BANK, WHICH CLEARLY REFLECTS THE ASSESSEES NAME AS AMONG THE NAMES OF THE BORROWERS AND, IN FACT, IN THE FIRST PLACE (PB PG. 5 ), I.E., ALONG WITH THAT OF HIS SPOUSE AS THE SECOND BOR ROWER. FURTHER, IN FIRST APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) SPECIF ICALLY ASKED THE ASSESSEE IF HIS CASE WAS THAT THE INVESTMENT IN THE HOUSE WAS MADE BY HIM IN THE NAME OF HIS WIFE, AND TO WHICH HE CATEGORICALLY DENIED . WE SEE NO REASON FOR THE DISALLOWANCE IN THE CIR CUMSTANCES AND, ACCORDINGLY, DIRECT ITS DELETION . 4. THE FOURTH AND THE LAST GROUND OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS IN RESPECT OF SALE OF F LAT NO. 203, SHIVAM APARTMENTS, BEARING THE ADDRESS : ROA D NO. 5 - D, S HRI K RISHNA PURI, PATNA. THE SAME WAS PURCHASED VID E REGISTERED SALE DEED DATED 20.06.2007 AND SOLD ON 15.01.2009. THE A.O. WAS, THEREFORE, OF THE VIEW THAT THE GAIN WAS SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN (STCG). THE LD. CIT(A), HOWEVER, ON THE BASIS OF THE MATERIAL AD DUCED BY THE ASSESSEE , 3 ITA NO. 116/PAT/2012 (A.Y. 2009 - 10) YASHOVARDHAN SINHA VS. ITO FOUND THAT THOUGH THE SALE - DEED WAS REGISTERED SUBSEQUENTLY, THE FLAT WAS ACQUIRED BY THE ASSESSEE MUCH EARLIER, WITH THE ASSESSEE HAVING OBTAINED A HOME LOAN OF RS.5 LACS, FROM PUNJAB N ATIONAL BANK (PNB) VIDE SANCTION LETTER DATED 13.06.1997 (PB PG. 6) , SO THAT THE HOUSE PROPERTY WAS IN HIS VIEW ACQUI RED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING F.Y. 1997 - 98 AND, THEREFORE, ENTITLED TO BE CONSIDERED AS HELD, IN COMPUTING THE CAPITAL GAINS ARISING U/S. 45 , BY THE ASSESSEE F ROM THAT YEAR ONWARDS. THE CLAIM TOWARD COST OF IMPROVEMENT WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE REVENUE IN THE ABSENCE AND/ OR LACK OF ITS SUBSTANTIATION. THE PRINCIPAL EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS BY WAY OF A LETTER FROM ONE, MUNNA FURNITURE MAKERS, OBTAINED AFTER THE COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, STATING OF THE WORK HAVING B EEN CARRIED OUT AT THE ASSESSEES FLAT FOR A SUM RANGING BETWEEN RS. 2 2.5 LACS. THE SAME WAS NOT IN THE FORM OF BILLS FOR WORK NOR DID IT BEAR THE DETAILS OF THE WORK CARRIED OUT AND, ACCORDINGLY, DID NOT FIND FAVOUR WITH THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES, AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. 5.1 THE ONLY DISPUTE S THAT SURVIVE , AND FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL, AS GATHERED FROM THE READING OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER AS WELL AS THE ARGUMENTS BEFORE US , ARE AS UNDER: A) T HE DEN IAL OF THE COST OF IMPROVEMENT, STATED TO HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE YEAR 2001, BY TAKING A LOAN , AGAIN FROM PNB , FOR RS.2 LACS (PB PG. 8) ; B) D EDUCTION U/S.54 ON THE CAPITAL GAINS ARISING TO THE ASSESSEE IN VIEW OF THE INVESTMENT MADE TOWARD THE PURCHASE OF A FLAT AT NOIDA ON THE BASIS OF THE AGREEMENT WITH THE BUILDER BY THE NAME M/S. AM RAPALI SAPPHIRE DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. 5.2 AS REGARDS THE COST OF IMPROVEMENT, THE REVENUES OBJECTION, AS SHALL BE APPARENT, IS BASED ON A CLEAR FINDING OF FA CT, I.E., OF THE ASSESSEE BEING UNABLE TO ESTABLISH ITS CLAIM OF RENOVATION BEING CARRIED OUT WITH ANY COGENT OR RELIABLE EVIDENCE. TOWARD THIS, WE OBSERVE THE PRINCIPAL EVIDENCE LED BY THE ASSESSEE AS THE UNDATED CERTIFICATE FROM THE SAID MUNNA FURNITURE MAKERS (PB PG. 15). IT, HOWEVER, DOES NOT SPECIFY THE NATURE OF THE WORK CARRIED OUT, NOR DOES THE ASSESSEE, SO THAT THE SAME REMAINS UNSPECIFIED . EVEN IF THEREFORE PAYMENTS WERE MADE TO THE SAID CONCERN, THERE IS NOTHING TO SHOW THAT THE SAME WERE ACTUA LLY IN THE NATURE OF RENOVATION WORK , SO AS TO QUALIFY FOR BEING CONSIDERED AS 4 ITA NO. 116/PAT/2012 (A.Y. 2009 - 10) YASHOVARDHAN SINHA VS. ITO TOWARD IMPROVEMENT. IF, FOR EXAMPLE, SOME FURNITURE WAS GOT FABRICATED, THE SAME MAY NOT QUALIFY A S A N IMPROVEMENT TO THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE , FOR WHICH IT SHALL HAVE TO BE SHOWN THAT THE SAID FURNITURE FORMS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE HOUSE/STRUCTURE . THE LETTER HEAD, ON WHICH THE CERTIFICATE STANDS ISSUED, DESCRIBES THE SAID CONCERN AS INTERIOR DECORATORS , SO THAT IT MAY BE THAT SOME INTERIOR DESIGNING WORK W AS CARRIED OUT BY THE SAID FIRM, WHICH MAY AGAIN NOT NECESSARILY BE IN THE NATURE OF AN ADDITION OR IMPROVEMENT TO THE EXISTING HOUSE. ANY ADDITION AND/OR ALTERATION TO THE HOUSE, ENHANCING ITS FUNCTIONAL UTILITY, SO AS TO QUALIFY AS AN IMPROVEMENT, WOULD ALSO REQUIRE BEING NOT IFIED TO THE HOUSING SOCIETY OR EVEN APPROVAL OF THE RELEVANT AUTHORITIES. IN FACT, APART FROM NON - SPECIFICATION OF THE WORK, SO THAT THE VERY BASIS OF THE ASSESSEES CLAIM REMAINS UNKNOWN, THE CERTIFICATE SPEAKS OF THE RENOVATION WORK HAVING BEEN CARRIED OUT DURING THE YEARS 1997 - 98 AND 2001 - 02, IMPLYING THE RELEVANT FINANCIAL YEARS. HOW COULD RENOVATION BE CARRIED OUT IN F.Y. 1997 - 98, WHEREAT THE HOUSE WAS, BY OWN ADMISSION, PURCHASED ? T HE ADDITIONAL LOAN OF RS. 2 LACS FROM THE BANK WA S SANCTIONED ON 06/9 /2001 (PB PG. 8) , WHICH IS CLAIMED TO BE THE SOURCE OF THE INVESTMENT, WITH EVEN THE ASSESSEE CLAIMING THE IMPROVEMENT TO HAVE BEEN CARRIED OUT IN THE YEAR 2001 , CONTRADICTING THE SAID CERTIFICATE . FOR THE REASONS AFORE - STATED , WE ARE INCLINED TO BE IN AGR EEMENT WITH THE REVENUE OF THE ASSESSEE AS HAVING BEEN UNABLE TO ESTABLISH ITS CLAIM OF HAVING UNDERTAKEN IMPROVEMENT OF ITS HOUSE IN 2001. 5.3 THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DISALLOWED THE ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 54 FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS (REFER PARA GRAPH 9 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER): (A) THAT THE NEW RESIDENTIAL HOUSE (FLAT) AT NOIDA WAS NOT COMPLETED BY 15.01.2012, I.E., THE DATE MARKING THE EXPIRY OF THREE YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THE TRANSFER. (B) THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT DEPOSITED THE UNUTILIZED CAPIT AL GAIN IN AN ACCOUNT OPENED UNDER THE CAPITAL GAINS ACCOUNT SCHEME NOTIFIED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT; (C) THAT THE ENTIRE AMOUNT PAID TOWARDS THE ACQUISITION OF THE NEW FLAT HAD BEEN AFTER THE DUE DATE OF FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME U/S. 139(1) AS APPLICAB LE IN THE ASSESSEES CASE ; THE FIRST SUCH INSTALMENT, AT RS. 2.50 LACS , BEING PAID TO THE 5 ITA NO. 116/PAT/2012 (A.Y. 2009 - 10) YASHOVARDHAN SINHA VS. ITO DEVELOPER, M/S AMRAPALI SAPPHIRE DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD. , ON THE EXECUTION OF THE AGREEMENT ON 02.11.2009; AND (D) THAT T HE NEW FLAT I S IN JOINT NAMES OF THE ASSESSEE AN D HIS WIFE, SUNITA SINHA. 5.4 THE ASSESSEE HAS BEFORE US RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: - CIT VS. JAGTAR SINGH CHAWLA [2013] 215 TAXMAN 154 (P&H) ; - FATHIMA BAI VS. ITO [2009] 32 DTR (KAR) 243 ; AND - CIT VS. RAJESH KUMAR JALAN (2006) 286 ITR 274 (GA U). PER THE SAID DECISIONS THE H ONBLE C OURTS HA VE EXPRESSED A VIEW THAT BEING A BENEFICIAL PROVISION, SECTION 54 (AS ALSO SEC . 54F) I S TO BE INTERPRETED LIBERALLY, GIVING THE BENEFIT OF ANY AMBIGUITY IN THE ENACTMENT TO THE SUBJECT (ASSESSEE). ACCORDING LY, ITS STAND S HELD THAT THE AMOUNT OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN S (LTCG) TO BE UTILIZED FOR THE ACQUISITION OF THE NEW RESIDENTIAL HOUSE BY THE ASSESSEE OR BY WAY OF DEPOSIT IN THE ACCOUNT (WITH A SCHEDULED BANK OR SPECIFIED INSTITUTION) , COULD BE BY THE TIME LIMIT SPECIFIED FOR FURNISHING A RETURN OF INCOME U/S. 139(4). THE SAID DECISIONS WOULD NOT BE OF ANY ASSISTANCE TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE UNDISPUTED FACTS OF THE CASE. THIS IS AS THE PRIMARY CONDITION OF THE PURCHASE OF A HOUSE WITHIN A YEAR BEFORE , OR WI THIN TWO YEARS AFTER , THE DATE OF TRANSFER, OR ITS CONSTRUCTION WITHIN THREE YEARS THEREOF, IS NOT SATISFIED. THERE IS NO AMBIGUITY ABOUT THE TIME LIMIT SPECIFIED FOR THE TWO MODES OF ACQUISITION ENVISAGED BY THE PROVISION. THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HA S GIVEN A CATEGORICAL FINDING OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE NOIDA FLAT BEING NOT COMPLETE BY 15.01.2012 , AND WHICH FINDING REMAINS UN REBUTTED OR UN CONTROVERTED. THE NEXT DECISION RELIED UPON IS IN THE CASE OF SANJEEV LAL VS. CIT (IN C.A.NOS. 5899 - 5900 OF 201 4) BY THE HONBLE P&H HIGH COURT (COPY ON RECORD) . IN THE FACTS OF THAT CASE, THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED A NEW FLAT ON 30.04.20 0 3, WHILE TRANSFERRING HIS RESIDENTIAL HOUSE (ORIGINAL ASSET) ON 2 4 .0 9 .2004. THE PURCHASE OF THE NEW ASSET BEING MORE THAN ONE YEAR P RIOR TO THE TRANSFER OF THE ORIGINAL ASSET, THE ASSESSEES CLAIM WAS DENIED. THE HONBLE COURT , IN VIEW OF THE EXTENDED DEFINITION OF THE TERM TRANSFER U/S. 2(47) OF THE ACT, HELD IN THE ASSESSEES FAVOUR IN VIEW OF THE AGREEMENT TO SELL ENTERED INTO FOR THE SALE OF THE ORIGINAL 6 ITA NO. 116/PAT/2012 (A.Y. 2009 - 10) YASHOVARDHAN SINHA VS. ITO ASSET ON 27.12.2002, CREATING SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS IN PERSONAM IN FAVOUR OF THE PURCHASER . THE DELAY IN EXECUTING THE SALE - DEED WAS FOR THE REASON OF LITIGATION WITH ONE, RANJEET LAL, CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF THE WILL WHEREBY THE ORIGINAL ASSET HAD DEVOLVED ON THE ASSESSEE. THE MATTER WAS IN FACT SUBJUDICE, WITH THE COURT RESTRAINING THE EXECUTION OF THE SALE - DEED IN FAVOUR OF A THIRD PARTY. HOW, WE WONDER, THE SAID DECISION HELPS THE ASSESSEE , AND WHICH WAS ALSO NOT SHOWN DURING HEARING . THE CAPITAL GAINS ON THE SALE OF HIS RESIDENTIAL HOUSE HAS ALREADY BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AS LTCG, WITH THE REVENUE BEING NOT IN APPEAL. 5.5 THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO PLACED CBD T C IRCULAR N OS. 471 DATED 15.10.1986 AND 672 DATED 16.12.1993 IN THE PAPER - BOOK. THE SAME ARE TOWARD RECKONING T HE ACQUISITION OF THE FLATS/RESIDENTIAL HOUSES UNDER THE SELF - FINANCING SCHEME S BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITIES OR COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES , AS AKIN TO AND, THUS, LIABLE TO BE CONSIDERED AS A MODE OF CONSTRUCTION , S O THAT THE EXTENDED DATE FOR ACQUISITION OF NEW HOUSE PROPERTY S HALL APPLY . THE ARRANGEMENT IN THE INSTANT CASE IS NOT SHOWN TO BE A SELF - FINANCING ARRANGEMENT, BEING WIT H A PRIVATE DEVELOPER, WORKING FOR A PROFIT , NOR IS THERE ANY FINDING BY THE REVENUE T O THAT EFFECT . THE SAID CIRCULARS WOULD THUS BE OF NO MOMENT. EVEN A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE THAT IS PURCHASED STANDS, OR NEED S TO BE , CONSTRUCTED / BUILT . THE MOOT AND THE RELEVANT QUESTION , THEREFORE, WOULD BE WHETHER ITS CONSTRUCTION IS TO BE CONSIDERED AS BY THE ASS ESSEE - BUYER OR THE BUILDER, I.E., IS HE ACTING AS A DEVELOPER OR A CONTRACTOR. FURTHER, E VEN CONSIDERING IT TO BE A CASE OF CONSTRUCTION , SO THAT THE RELEVANT DATE GETS EXTENDED BY ONE YEAR, THE ACQUISITION IS NOT COMPLETE WITHIN THREE YEARS OF THE TRANSFE R, I.E. , AS APPLICABLE FOR CONSTRUCTION. IT IS THE SATISFACTION OF THIS CONDITION ALONE WHICH EN TITLES THE ASSESSEE TO REL IEF U/S. 54 FROM THE CHARGE OF L ONG TERM C APITAL G AINS TO TAX. THAT IS, TRIGGERS THE PROVISION , THE BALANCE PART OF WHICH IS PROCEDURA L , WITH WHICH THE CITED DECISIONS CONCERN THEMSELVES. IN EACH OF THE CITED DECISIONS, THIS PRIMARY CONDITION STANDS SATISFIED, I.E. , ITS NON - SATISFACTION IS NOT I N ISSUE. FURTHER STILL, EVEN GOING BY THE ASSESSEES STAND , IT IS ONLY THE SUM DEPOSITED IN TH E CAPITAL GAIN S SCHEME ACCOUNT (WHICH IS ADMITTEDLY NOT OPENED IN THE INSTANT CASE) OR OTHERWISE UTILIZED TOWARD THE ACQUISITION OF THE NEW 7 ITA NO. 116/PAT/2012 (A.Y. 2009 - 10) YASHOVARDHAN SINHA VS. ITO RESIDENTIAL HOUSE BY THE EXTENDED DATE OF FURNISHING THE RETURN OF INCOME U/S. 139(4) , THAT WOULD QUALIFY FOR BEING CONSIDERED AS TOWARD THE C O S T OF THE NEW ASSET, WITH RE FERENCE TO WHICH THE CAPITAL GAIN STANDS TO BE EXCEPTED FROM BEING BROUGHT TO TAX ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT OR DEEMED INVESTMENT THEREIN . I T IS ONLY THIS AMOUNT WHICH IN ANY CASE OF THE MATTER COULD BE CONSIDERED AS BEING SUBJECT TO EXEMPT ION FROM TAX ON CAPITAL GAIN S. DUE REGARD IS TO BE MADE FOR THE SCHEME OF THE ACT, OR EVEN THE RELEVANT PROVISION/S, EVEN AS EXPLAINED BY THE APEX COURT IN BHAVNAGAR UNIVERSITY VS. PALITANA SUGAR MILL PVT. LTD. [2003] 2 SCC 111, RELIED UPON, EXTRACTING A PART (PARAS 24 & 25) THEREOF IN RAJESH KUMAR JALAN (SUPRA). WE MAY THOUGH CLARIFY THAT THIS IS STATED IN ADDITION AND WITH OUT PREJUDICE TO OUR PRINCIPAL OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE BEING N OT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S.54 IN VIEW OF THE NON - SATISFACTION OF THE PRIMARY CONDITION OF ACQUISITION OF HOUSE PROPERTY WITHIN THE TIME PERIOD STIPULATED U/S.54(1). THE INVESTMENT OF THE CAPITAL GAINS THEREIN, NATURALLY , IS TO BE WITHIN THIS TIME PERIOD, FOR WHICH A MECHANISM IS PROVIDED . THIS REPRESENTS THE SECOND LIMB OF THE PROVISION ; THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE RELEVANT YEAR BEING, IT MAY BE APPRECIATED, REQUIRED BY LAW TO BE FILED BY THE DUE DATE U/S. 139(1). WE ARE , AT THIS STAGE, REMINDED OF , AND MAY PROFITABLY REPRODUCE , THE OBSERVATION S BY THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. T. N. ARAVINDA REDDY [1979] 120 ITR 46 (SC): 3. WE FIND NO REASON TO DIVORCE THE ORDINARY MEANING OF THE WORD 'PURCHASE' AS BUYING FOR A PRICE OR EQUIVALENT OF PRICE BY PAYMENT IN KIND OR ADJUSTMENT TOWARDS AN O LD DEBT OR FOR OTHER MONETARY CONSIDERATION FROM THE LEGAL MEANING OF THAT WORD IN S. 54(1). IF YOU SELL YOUR HOUSE AND MAKE A PROFIT, PAY CAESAR WHAT IS DUE TO HIM. BUT IF YOU BUY OR BUILD ANOTHER, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF S. 54(1), YOU ARE EXEMPT. TH E PURPOSE IS PLAIN; THE SYMMETRY IS SIMPLE, THE LANGUAGE IS PLAIN. WHY MUTILATE THE MEANING BY LEXICAL LEGALISM. WE SEE NO STRESS IN THE SECTION ON 'CASH AND CARRY'. THE POINT PRESSED MUST, THEREFORE, BE NEGATIVED. WE HAVE DECLINED TO HEAR SRI S. T. DESAI' S ARTILLERY FIRE ALTHOUGH HE WAS ARMED CAP A PIE WITH MITAKSHARA LORE AND LAW. A POINT OF SUFFOCATING SCHOLARSHIP SOMETIMES ARRIVES IN COURT WHEN ONE NOSTALGICALLY REMEMBERS THE ESCAPIST VERSE : 'WHERE IGNORANCE IS BLISS, TIS FOLLY TO BE WISE.' AMEN! A PA SSING REFERENCE 8 ITA NO. 116/PAT/2012 (A.Y. 2009 - 10) YASHOVARDHAN SINHA VS. ITO 5.6 T HE ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 54 , WHICH EXTEND S UP TO THE ENTIRE LTCG, ACCORDINGLY, FAILS, EVEN AS WE DO NOT SET MUCH STORE FOR THE R EVENUES FOURTH OBJECTION OF THE NEW PROPERTY BEING ALSO IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE S W IFE. WE DECIDE ACCORDINGLY. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON JUNE 29 , 201 5 SD/ - SD/ - ( A. D. JAIN ) (S ANJAY ARORA) / J UDICIAL MEMBER / A CCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 29 . 0 6 .201 5 . . ./ ROSHANI , SR. PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) 4. / CIT CONCERNED 5. , , / DR, ITAT, PATNA 6. / GUARD F ILE / BY ORDER, / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , ITAT, PATNA