, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , .. ' #$, & '( BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.1269/MDS/2015 * +* / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 SMT. P. THILAKAVATHY, NO.60, SESHACHALAM STREET, SAIDAPET, CHENNAI - 600 015. PAN : AACPT 6290 M V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, BUSINESS WARD V(4), CHENNAI - 600 034. (-./ APPELLANT) (/0-./ RESPONDENT) -. 1 2 / APPELLANT BY : SHRI N. SABAPATHY, ADVOCATE /0-. 1 2 / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SHIVA SRINIVAS, JCIT ' 1 3& / DATE OF HEARING : 02.02.2017 45+ 1 3& / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23.03.2017 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) 14, CHEN NAI, DATED 23.03.2015 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. 2 I.T.A. NO.1269/MDS/15 2. THE ONLY ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS WITH REGARD TO CLAIM OF EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE INCOME-TAX AC T, 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT'). 3. SHRI N. SABAPATHY, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSES SEE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE ACT ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS OWNING MORE THAN ONE PROPERTY OTHER THA N THE NEW ASSET ON THE DATE OF TRANSFER OF ORIGINAL ASSET, TH EREFORE, SHE IS NOT ENTITLED FOR CLAIM OF EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54F O F THE ACT. THUS, THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE ASS ESSING OFFICER. REFERRING TO SECTION 54F OF THE ACT, THE LD. COUNSE L SUBMITTED THAT THE AMENDMENT CAME INTO EFFECT ONLY WITH EFFECT FRO M 01.04.2015, THEREFORE, DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE RE CANNOT BE ANY DISALLOWANCE. 4. WE HAVE HEARD SHRI SHIVA SRINIVAS, THE LD. DEPAR TMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ALSO. ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., AS PER THE RENTAL RECEIPT FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASS ESSEE WAS OWNING MORE THAN ONE HOUSE AS ON THE DATE OF INVESTMENT IN THE NEW HOUSE, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE ACT. 3 I.T.A. NO.1269/MDS/15 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE REQUIREMENT OF MORE THAN ONE HOUSE WAS INTERPRETED BY THE MADRA S HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. V.R. KARPAGAM IN TAX CASE (AP PEAL) NO.301 OF 2014. THE MADRAS HIGH COURT FOUND THAT THIS AMENDM ENT IS APPLICABLE PROSPECTIVELY AND BASED ON THAT THE ASSE SSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSEE INVESTED IN MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL UNITS. IN THIS CASE, THE YEAR UNDER CO NSIDERATION IS 2011- 12. THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE JUDGMENT OF MADRAS H IGH COURT IN V.R. KARPAGAM (SUPRA), THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERE D OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION EVEN THOUGH THE CAPITAL GAIN WAS INVESTED IN MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL UNITS. WE ARE UNA BLE TO UPHOLD THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ARE SET ASIDE AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO GRANT DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE ACT IN THE LIGHT OF THE JUDGEMENT OF MADRAS HIGH COURT IN V.R. KARPAGAM (SU PRA). 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 4 I.T.A. NO.1269/MDS/15 ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 23 RD MARCH, 2017 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . . ' #$ ) ( . . . ) (D.S. SUNDER SINGH) (N.R.S. GANESAN) & / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 7 /DATED, THE 23 RD MARCH, 2017. KRI. 1 /3#8 98+3 /COPY TO: 1. -. /APPELLANT 2. /0-. /RESPONDENT 3. ' :3 () /CIT(A)-14, CHENNAI 4. ' :3 /CIT-10, CHENNAI 5. 8; /3 /DR 6. * < /GF.