Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7857 (ITAT-PUNE)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
3 month(s) 20 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
27-01-2020
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Allowed
Bench Allotted
SMC
Assessment Year
2013-2014
Appeal Filed On
07-10-2019
Judgement Text
] IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH SMC, PUNE BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER . / ITA NO.1576/PUN/2019 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14 SMT. ASHA AKHILESH SHUKLA, FLAT NO.29, BUILDING NO.D-7/10, RADHA NAGAR, BARVE ROAD, KHADAKPADA CHAWK, KALYAN WEST. PAN : BGVPS9845P. . / APPELLANT V/S THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), SOLAPUR. . / RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI J.G. PENDSE. REVENUE BY : SHRI HARSHIT BARI, DCIT. / ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM : 1. THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS EMANATING OUT OF THE O RDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) 9, PUNE DATED 30.07 .2019 FOR A.Y. 2013-14. 2. THE RELEVANT FACTS AS CULLED OUT FROM THE MATERIAL ON RE CORD ARE AS UNDER :- ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL WHO IS STATED TO BE HAVING INCOM E FROM PROFESSION, OTHER SOURCES AND CAPITAL GAINS. ASSESSEE ELE CTRONICALLY FILED / DATE OF HEARING : 22.01.2020 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 27.01.2020 2 HER RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2013-14 ON 30.12.2013 DE CLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1,88,210/-. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTIN Y AND THEREAFTER, ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT V IDE ORDER DATED 09.03.2016 AND THE TOTAL TAXABLE INCOME WAS DETERMINED AT RS.22,00,990/-. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF AO, ASSESSEE CA RRIED THE MATTER BEFORE LD.CIT(A), WHO VIDE ORDER DATED 30.07.2019 DISMISSED THE APPEA L OF THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A), ASSESS EE IS NOW IN APPEAL AND HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING EFFECTIVE GROUND : ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW , THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING THE CLAIM U/S 54F OF RS.20,12 ,785/-. 3. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, AO NOTIC ED THAT ASSESSEE HAD SOLD A PLOT OF LAND SITUATED AT KHATA NO.2 20, KHASARA NO.115B AT VILLAGE ARTONI TAHASIL, DIST. AGRA FOR RS.1,60,00,000/ - ON 25.03.2013. THE AFORESAID LAND WAS PURCHASED ON 24.02.2003 FOR RS.5,95,205/-. OUT OF THE SALE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED, ASSE SSEE HAD INVESTED RS.50 LAKHS IN CAPITAL GAIN BONDS OF RURAL ELECTRIFICAT ION CORPORATION LTD., ON WHICH SHE HAD CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 54EC OF THE ACT. THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 54EC ALLOWED BY THE AO. AO ALSO NOTED THAT ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 54F OF THE AC T OF RS.98,65,515/- BEING THE INVESTMENT MADE FOR PURCHASE OF THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSES. AO NOTED THAT THE CLAIM WAS FOR THREE FLATS PURCHASED BY AS SESSEE IN BUILDING KNOWN AS NISARGA MEADOWS AT WAKAD, PUNE AND AKRUTI PR OPERTIES. HE NOTED THAT ALL THE THREE FLATS WERE IN THE SAME BUILDING BU T ON DIFFERENT FLOORS. THE ASSESSEE WAS THEREFORE ASKED AS TO HOW THE ASSESSEE WAS ELIGIBLE FOR CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 54F OF THE ACT AS ASSESSE E HAD PURCHASED THREE FLATS. THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSE SSEE WERE NOT 3 FULLY ACCEPTED BY THE AO. AO ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION ONLY ON THE PURCHASE OF TWO FLATS NAMELY, 507 & 508 WHICH WERE COMBI NED BUT DENIED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 54F OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF T HE FLAT NO.107ON FIRST FLOOR AND THUS DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION OF LO NG TERM CAPITAL GAIN U/S 54F OF RS.20,12,785/-. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF AO, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE LD.CIT(A), WHO UPHELD THE ORDER OF AO. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A), ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL. 4. BEFORE ME, LD.A.R. REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFOR E AO AND LD.CIT(A) AND FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT WHILE DENYING THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 54F OF THE ACT, RELIANCE HAS BEEN PLACED BY THE AUT HORITIES ON THE AMENDMENT MADE U/S 54F OF THE ACT BY THE FINANCE ACT (NO.2) ACT, 2014. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE AMENDMENT U/S 54F OF THE ACT IS W.E.F. 01.04.2015 I.E., FROM A.Y. 2015-16 ONWARDS AND THAT SINCE THE YEAR UND ER CONSIDERATION IN THE PRESENT CASE A.Y. 2013-14, THE AMEND MENT DOES NOT APPLY. HE SUBMITTED THAT PRIOR TO THE AMENDMENT EV EN ON PURCHASE OF MORE THAN ONE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE, ASSESSEE WAS ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM DEDUCTION. HE ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF HON BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT AND ANOTHER VS. D. ANANDA BASAPPA REPORTED IN (2009) 309 ITR 329 AND THE DECISION OF PUNE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASES OF ITO VS. SHRI NARSHIVHA AMRUTRAO DHERE AND ITO VS. SHRI CHANDRASEN AMRUTRAO DHERE IN ITA NOS.1944 AND 1945/P N/2013 ORDER DATED 18.03.2015. HE ALSO PLACED ON RECORD THE COPY OF THE AFORESAID DECISIONS. HE THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT IN VIEW OF THE AFOR ESAID DECISIONS, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BE ALLOWED. LD. D.R. ON THE OTHER HAND, SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF AO AND LD.CIT(A). 4 5. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE M ATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT GROUND IS WITH RESPE CT TO THE DENIAL OF CLAIM OF DEDUCTION OF RS.20,12,785/- U/S 54F OF THE ACT. IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT ASSESSEE HAD SOLD A PLOT OF LAND FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.1.60 CRORES AND A PART OF IT HAD BEEN RE-INVESTED IN PURCHASING THREE FLATS IN THE SAME BUILDING. ON THE PURCHASE OF THREE FLATS , ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 54F OF THE ACT. OUT OF THE THREE FLA TS PURCHASED, TWO FLATS WERE ADJACENT FLAT AND THE 3 RD FLAT WAS IN THE SAME BUILDING. IT IS ALSO A FACT THAT ON THE TWO ADJACENT FLATS WHICH WERE PU RCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE, DEDUCTION U/S 54F OF THE ACT WAS GRANTED BY THE AO. I FIND THAT HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. GUMANMA L JAIN REPORTED IN (2017) 394 ITR 666 AFTER CONSIDERING THE AME NDMENT MADE TO SEC.54F OF THE ACT BY THE FINANCE (NO.2) ACT, OF 2014 HELD THAT PRIOR TO T HE AMENDMENT MADE BY THE FINANCE ACT (NO.2) ACT, 2014 W.E.F. 01 .04.2015 (FROM A.Y. 2015-16 ONWARDS), THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE WOULD INCLUD E MULTIPLE FLATS / RESIDENTIAL UNITS. IT HAS FURTHER HELD THAT EVEN IF T HE FLATS/APARTMENTS WERE IN DIFFERENT BLOCKS/BUILDINGS AND SO LO NG AS THEY ARE AT THE SAME LOCATION/ADDRESS, ASSESSEE WAS ELIGIBLE FO R DEDUCTION U/S 54F OF THE ACT PRIOR TO 01.04.2015. BEFORE ME, REVENUE HAS NOT POINTED OUT ANY CONTRARY BINDING DECISION IN ITS SUPPORT. I THER EFORE CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE IMPUGNED YEAR BEING A.Y. 2013-14 WHER EIN THE AMENDMENT MADE BY FINANCE (NO.2) OF ACT, 2014 WOULD NOT A PPLY AND RELYING ON THE AFORESAID DECISION OF THE HONBLE MADRAS H IGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GUMANMAL JAIN (SUPRA), AM OF THE VIEW THAT ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 54F OF THE ACT AND THEREFORE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION ON ALL THE THREE FLATS PURCHASED BY HER. I THEREFORE DIRECT THE AO 5 TO GRANT THE DEDUCTION U/S 54F OF THE ACT. THUS, THE GROUNDS OF ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 27 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2020. SD/-- ( ANIL CHATURVEDI ) ' / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PUNE; DATED : 27 TH JANUARY, 2020. YAMINI #$%&'(' % / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. 4. 5 6. CIT(A) 9, PUNE. PR. CIT 6, PUNE. '#$ %%&',) &', *+ / DR, ITAT, SMC PUNE; $-.// GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER // TRUE COPY // 012%3&4 / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY ) &', / ITAT, PUNE.
