Suresh Chand Surana, Raipur V. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-4(1), Raipur

ITA 25/RPR/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7900 (ITAT-RAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-09-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 17-05-2021
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R.K. SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: C A; R B. D O I
• Keywords: Capital asset; Revision of order; Benefit of exemption; Set aside; Capital Gains
• Section: 54; 263; 143(3); 54F; 54EC; 20

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI N. K. CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO. 25/RPR/2021) ( ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2016-17) SURESH CHAND SURANA SURANA COMPLEX, OPP. GIRDHAR BHAWAN, SADAR BAZAR, RAIPUR, CHHATTISGARH - 492001 / VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4(1) RAIPUR, CHHATTISGARH - 492001 ./ ./PAN/GIR NO. : AKBPS4177R ( APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI R. B. DOSHI, C.A. / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI R. K. SINGH, CIT.DR DATE OF HEARING 30/07/2021 !'# / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 06/09/2021 / O R D E R PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA - AM: THE CAPTIONED APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE PRINCIPAL COMMISS IONER OF INCOME TAX, RAIPUR (PCIT IN SHORT), DATED 30.03.2021 PAS SED UNDER S.263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT) WHEREBY THE A SSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) DATED 04.09.20 18 UNDER S. 143(3) OF THE ACT CONCERNING AY 2016-17 WAS SOUGHT TO BE SET ASIDE FOR REFRAMING ASSESSMENT IN TERMS OF SUPERVISORY DIRECTIONS. ITA NO. 25/RPR/2021 (SURESH CHAND SURANA VS. ACIT) A.Y. 2016-17 - 2 - 2. AS PER THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS SOUGHT TO CHALLENGE THE JURISDICTION ASSUMED BY THE PCIT UNDE R S.263 OF THE ACT AND AS A COROLLARY, SOUGHT TO IMPUGN THE REVISI ONAL ORDER PASSED BY THE PCIT UNDER S.263 OF THE ACT. 3. THE PCIT SOUGHT TO REVISE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER D ATED 04.09.2018 PASSED UNDER S.143(3) OF THE ACT BY WAY OF A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 22.02.2021 SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE, W HICH IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER: SUBJECT: NOTICE FOR HEARING IN RESPECT OF REVISION PROCEEDINGS U/S 263 OF THE THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016-17 . IN THIS REGARD, A HEARING IN THE MATTER IS FIXED ON 01/03/2021 AT 11:00 AM. YOU ARE REQUESTED TO ATTEND IN PERSON OR THROUGH A N AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE TO SUBMIT YOUR REPRESENTATION, IF AN Y ALONGWITH SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS/INFORMATION IN SUPPORT OF THE ISSUES INVOLVED (AS MENTIONED BELOW). IF YOU WISH THAT THE REVISION PRO CEEDING BE CONCLUDED ON THE BASIS OF YOUR WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS/ REPRESENTATIONS FILED IN THIS OFFICE, ON OR BEFORE THE SAID DUE DAT E, THEN YOUR PERSONAL ATTENDANCE IS NOT REQUIRED. YOU ALSO HAVE THE OPTIO N TO FILE YOUR SUBMISSION FROM THE E-FILING PORTAL USING THE LINK: INCOMETAXINDIAEFILING.GOV.IN PLEASE REFER TO THE ABOVE. ON EXAMINATION OF YOUR INCOME TAX RECORDS FOR THE A BOVE ASSESSMENT YEAR, I FIND THAT THE ORDER PASSED U/S 1 43(3) ON04/09/2018OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 IS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER: - THE ORDER IN THE AFORESAID CASE IS ERRONEOUS SO FAR AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ELECTRONICALLY ON 28.07.2016 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 89,40,440/-. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSEE HA S DERIVED INCOME FROM INTEREST INCOME AND INCOME FROM CAPITAL GAIN. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY THROUGH CASS FOR A.Y 2016-17 AND ORDER U/S 143(3) OF THE I.T ACT, 1961 WAS PASSED BY THE AO ON 04.09.2018 WITH THE ASSESSED INCOME AT RS. 89,40,440/-. ON PERUSAL AND VERIFICATION OF THE CASE RECORD, THE FOLLOWING FACTS ARE ENUMERATED AS UNDER:- 1. AS PER THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE ON RECORD, IT I S SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD JOINTLY SOLD AN IMMOVABLE PROPERTY AMOUNTING TO RS. 11.90 CR. DURING THE F.Y 2015-16. FROM ITA NO. 25/RPR/2021 (SURESH CHAND SURANA VS. ACIT) A.Y. 2016-17 - 3 - THE ABOVE SALE THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED CONSIDERAT ION OF RS. 2,43,18,856/- ( HIS SHARE IN THE PROPERTY) AND CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 54F AT RS. 1,04,31,764/- ON ACCOUNT INVESTMENT IN HOUSE PROPERTY AND CAPITAL GAIN ACCOU NT SCHEME. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE INVESTMENT O F RS. 50,00,000/- U/S 54EC ON SPECIFIED BOND (REC BOND). THUS, AFTER CONSIDERING ALL THE FACTS AND RELEVANT DOCUME NTS AVAILABLE ON RECORD THE RETURNED INCOME AT RS. 89,40,440/- IS ACCEPTED. 2. ON PERUSAL OF THE I&CI REPORT OF THE DIT (I&CI), BHOPAL RECEIVED THROUGH YOUR OFFICE, IT IS NOTICED THAT AS PER THE VERIFICATION DONE BY THE ADIT (I&CI), RAIPUR, IT IS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INVESTED RS. 10431764/- FOR P URCHASE OF FLAT BEARING NO. B-501 AND B-502, 5TH FLOOR, BLO CK NO. B, GOLDEN GLORY, SHREERAM NAGAR, SHANKAR NAGAR, RAIPUR. ON PERUSAL OF THE PURCHASE DEED DATED 01.09 .2015 OF THE ABOVE SAID FLATS, IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESS EE HAD PURCHASED TWO RESIDENTIAL FLATS AND CLAIMED BOTH U/ S 54F. IN ORDER TO VERIFY THE SAME AND KNOW THE EXACT POSI TION INSPECTOR WAS DEPUTED FOR INQUIRY AND AS PER THE RE PORT OF INSPECTOR IT IS GATHER THAT BOTH THE FLATS ARE DIFF ERENT ONE HAVING DIFFERENT ENTRANCE WITH NAME PLATE AS SHRI S URESH CHAND SURANA THOUGH THESE ARE SITUATED ADJACENT TO EACH OTHER. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED BOTH THE RESI DENTIAL HOUSES PURCHASED U/S 54F, WHICH AS PER SECTION IS N OT ALLOWABLE. THUS THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT COMPLIED THE PROVISION OF SECTION 54F I.E. CAPITAL GAIN ON TRANS FER OF CERTAIN CAPITAL ASSET NOT TO BE CHARGED IN CASE OF INVESTMENT IN RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. THE SAME IS REPROD UCED AS UNDER. 1. SUBJECT TO THE PROVISION OF SUB-SECTION (4) WHER E, IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE, BEING AN INDIVIDUAL OR HINDU UNDIVIDED FAMILY, THE CAPITAL GAIN ARISES FROM TRANSFER OF ANY LONG T ERM CAPITAL ASSET, NOT BEING A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE, AND T HE ASSESSEE HAS, WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR BEFORE OR (TWO YEA RS) AFTER THE DATE ON WHICH THE TRANSFER TOOK PLACE PURCHASED, OR HAS WITHIN A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS AFTER THAT DATE (CONSTRUCTE D, ONE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE IN INDIA) (HEREAFTER IN THIS SECT ION REFERRED TO AS THE NEW ASSET), THEN CAPITAL GAIN SHOULD BE D EALT WITH IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING PROVISIONS OF THE SEC TION. SINCE, THE UNDIVIDED SHARE OF THE LAND OF EACH FLAT IS 559.5 SQ. FT., FOR WHICH THE TOTAL COST OF INVESTMENT OF RS. 10431764/-, THE ASSESSEE WILL BE ENTITLED FOR ONE FLAT, THE VAL UE OF WHICH WILL BE RS. 5251882/- ACCORDINGLY AFTER REWORKING THE CA PITAL GAIN COMES TO RS. 1,37,08,337/- THE FINANCE (NO. 2) BILL, 2014 - MEMORANDUM EXPLAIN ING THE PROVISIONS RELATING TO DIRECT TAXES IS REPRODUCED B ELOW FOR SAKE OF CLARITY: THE EXISTING PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN SUB-SECTION (1 ) OF SECTION 54, INTER ALIA, PROVIDE THAT WHERE CAPITAL GAIN ARI SES FROM THE TRANSFER OF A LONG-TERM CAPITAL ASSET, BEING BUILDINGS OR LA NDS APPURTENANT ITA NO. 25/RPR/2021 (SURESH CHAND SURANA VS. ACIT) A.Y. 2016-17 - 4 - THERETO, AND BEING A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE, AND THE ASS ESSEE WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR BEFORE OR TWO YEARS AFTER THE DATE OF T RANSFER, PURCHASES, OR WITHIN A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS AFTER THE DATE OF TR ANSFER CONSTRUCTS, A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE THEN THE AMOUNT OF CAPITAL GAINS TO THE EXTENT INVESTED IN THE NEW RESIDENTIAL HOUSE IS NOT CHARGEABLE TO T AX UNDER SECTION 45 OF THE ACT. THE EXISTING PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN SUB-SECTION (1 ) OF SECTION 54F, INTER ALIA, PROVIDE THAT WHERE CAPITAL GAINS A RISES FROM TRANSFER OF A LONG-TERM CAPITAL ASSET, NOT BEING A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE, AND THE ASSESSEE WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR BEFORE OR TWO YEARS AFTER THE DATE OF TRANSFER, PURCHASES, OR WITHIN A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS AFTER THE DATE OF TRANSFER CONSTRUCTS, A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE THEN TH E PORTION OF CAPITAL GAINS IN THE RATIO OF COST OF NEW ASSET TO THE NET CONSIDERATION RECEIVED ON TRANSFER IS NOT CHARGEABLE TO TAX. THE BENEFIT WAS INTENDED FOR INVESTMENT IN ONE RESI DENTIAL HOUSE WITHIN INDIA. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS PROPOSED TO AMEND THE AFORESAID SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 54 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE ROLLOVER RELIEF UNDER THE SAID SECTION IS AVAILABLE IF THE INVESTME NT IS MADE IN ONE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE SITUATED IN INDIA. IT IS FURTHER PROPOSED TO AMEND THE AFORESAID SUB-S ECTION (1) OF SECTION 54F SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE EXEMPTION IS AVAILABLE IF THE INVESTMENT IS MADE IN ONERESIDENTIALHOUSE SITUATED IN INDIA. THESE AMENDMENTS WILL TAKE EFFECT FROM 1ST APRIL, 2 015 AND WILL ACCORDINGLY APPLY IN RELATION TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 15-16 AND SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEARS. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS, IT IS ABUNDANTLY CLEAR THAT ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 54F IN RESPECT OF ONLY O NE RESIDENTIAL UNIT. FURTHER, A.O FAILED TO INITIATE THE PENALTY U/S 271 (1) OF THE I.T.ACT, 1961. THUS, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED IN THIS CAS E IS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE . 4. SINCE THE ISSUES DISCUSSED SUPRA HAVE NOT BEEN P ROPERLY VERIFIED BY THE AO WHILE PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BY CON DUCTING PROPER ENQUIRIES AND EXAMINATION OF ACCOUNTS. HENCE, THERE IS A NO APPLICATION OF MIND ON THE PART OF THE AO AND THEREFORE, THE AS SESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT IS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. 5. HENCE, THERE IS NO APPLICATION OF MIND ON THE PA RT OF THE AO TO CORRECTLY TAX THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE RET URN OF INCOME AND THEREFORE, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143 OF T HE ACT IS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF R EVENUE. THEREFORE, IN EXERCISE OF THE POWERS CONFERRED ON M E BY SECTION 263 OF THE I.T.ACT, 1961, I PROPOSE TO SUITABLE REV ISE THE ORDER U/S 263, WHICH MAY INCLUDE SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER AS SUCH. ACCORDINGLY, AN OPPORTUNITY IS BEING EXTENDED TO EXPLAIN YOUR CASE ALONG WITH DETAILS, DOCUMENTS AND NECESSARY EVIDENCES. AN ABSENCE OF AN Y SUBMISSION OR REPLY SHALL LEAD TO THE CONCLUSION THAT YOU HAVE NO OBJECTION FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION AND THE PROCEEDINGS SHALL BE FINALI ZED ACCORDINGLY. ITA NO. 25/RPR/2021 (SURESH CHAND SURANA VS. ACIT) A.Y. 2016-17 - 5 - YOUR SUBMISSION / REPLY MAY KINDLY BE SENT THROUGH THE E-MAIL ON OR BEFORE 01/03/2021. IF YOU WISH TO APPEAR PERSONALLY OR THROUGH YOUR AU THORIZED REPRESENTATIVE, PERSONAL HEARING MAY KINDLY BE AVAI LED ON 01/03/2021 AT 11:00 AM IN THE OFFICE OF PCIT-1, CENTRAL REVENU E BUILDING, CIVIL LINES, RAIPUR. 4. AS PER THE REVISIONAL ORDER, THE CIT(A) ULTIMATE LY CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER S .54F OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF ONLY ONE RESIDENTIAL UNIT AND TWO ADJOIN ING FLATS CANNOT BE REGARDED AS ONE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. IT WAS FURTH ER ALLEGED THAT AO HAS FAILED TO INITIATE PENALTY UNDER S.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. THE AO WAS ACCORDINGLY DIRECTED TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE RIVI SIONAL ORDER. 5. AGGRIEVED BY THE AFORESAID ACTION OF THE PCIT, T HE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AGITATING THE SUPERVI SORY JURISDICTION USURPED BY THE PCIT UNDER S.263 OF THE ACT. 6. WHEN THE MATTER WAS CALLED FOR HEARING, THE LEAR NED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT THE CONTROVERSY R AISED BY THE PCIT UNDER S.263 OF THE ACT IS TOWARDS ELIGIBILITY OF DE DUCTION UNDER S.54F OF THE ACT. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESS EE HAD JOINTLY SOLD AN IMMOVABLE PROPERTY DURING F.Y. 2015-16. THE SAL E PROCEEDS WERE INVESTED IN TWO ADJOINING FLATS BEARING NO. B- 501 & B-502, GOLDEN GLORY, SHRIRAM NAGAR, RAIPUR. THE PCIT INVO KED PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263 OF THE ACT ON THE GROUND THAT DEDUCTION UNDER S.54F OF THE ACT OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN ALLOWED O NLY IN RESPECT OF ONE RESIDENTIAL UNIT/FLAT AND THUS, DEDUCTION UNDER S.54F OF THE ACT HAS BEEN EXCESS CLAIMED BY TAKING INTO ACCOUNT TWO UNITS AS A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE, WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE IN LAW. THUS, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED IN THIS CASE WAS ALLEGED TO BE ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. ITA NO. 25/RPR/2021 (SURESH CHAND SURANA VS. ACIT) A.Y. 2016-17 - 6 - 5.1 IN THIS BACKDROP, THE LEARNED COUNSEL POINTED O UT THAT THE ACTION OF THE PCIT IS WHOLLY WRONG AND DOES NOT MEE T REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. THE LEARNED COUNSEL SUB MITTED THAT THE ISSUE WAS SPECIFICALLY ENQUIRED BY THE AO BY ISSUIN G NOTICE UNDER S.142(1) OF THE ACT DATED 19.06.2018 AND SECONDLY, IN THE LIGHT OF LONG LINE OF JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS, TWO OR MORE RESID ENTIAL UNITS CAN CONSTITUTE ONE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE PROPERTY IN APPROP RIATE CIRCUMSTANCES. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE FLATS PURC HASED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ADJOINING AND HAVE BEEN COMBINED AND U SED TOGETHER AS A SINGLE UNIT WITH COMMON KITCHEN. IT WAS FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THE PURCHASED DEED OF RESIDENTIAL UNIT NOS. B-501 & B-502 IS A SINGLE REGISTRY. HE FURTHER REFERRED TO COPY OF LE TTER TO THE BUILDER FOR ALTERATION IN RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY AND COPY OF ALTERATION IS PLACED WITH PHOTOGRAPHS. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT WAS C ONTENDED THAT NO EMBARGO HAS BEEN LAID DOWN IN SECTION 54F OF THE AC T TO ARTIFICIALLY RESTRICT THE DEDUCTION ONLY WITH REFERENCE TO ONE U NIT AS HELD IN ITO VS. SUSHILA M. JHAVERI (2007) 107 ITD 321 (MUM) (SB ) AND FOLLOWED THEREAFTER IN KAMAL MURLIDHAR MOKASHI VS 1TO (2019) 179 ITD 265 (PUNE), DINANATH BADRINATH CHHABRA VS ITO IN ITA NO. 7111/MUM/2012, ITO (INTL. TAX) VS KAVITA GUPTA (2018) 52 CCH 308 (MUM. TRIB.) & AC IT VS SANJAY B. PAHADIA (2017) 49 CCI1 7 (MUM. TRIB.). 5.2 IT WAS FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT ISSUE, IN ANY C ASE, IS DEBATABLE AND THE AO HAS TAKEN A VIEW PLAUSIBLE IN LAW AND TH EREFORE, THE JURISDICTION UNDER S.263 OF THE ACT DOES NOT LIE. IT WAS ALSO CONTENDED THAT WHERE THERE IS NO SCOPE FOR ANY FURT HER ENQUIRY IN THE MATTER, THE PCIT COULD NOT HAVE SET ASIDE THE ASSES SMENT ORDER SO FRAMED WITHOUT POINTING OUT THE EXACT NATURE OF ENQ UIRY REMAINED TO BE CARRIED OUT AFTER SOME MINIMAL ENQUIRY ON HIS PA RT. ONCE, AN EXAMINATION OF THE ISSUE WAS CARRIED OUT BY THE PCI T, HE COULD NOT DIFFER FROM THE JUDICIAL VIEW TAKEN BY THE AO. THE LEARNED COUNSEL ITA NO. 25/RPR/2021 (SURESH CHAND SURANA VS. ACIT) A.Y. 2016-17 - 7 - THUS URGED THAT THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION UNDE R S.263 OF THE ACT IS PATENTLY WRONG AND OPPOSED TO THE JUDICIAL UNDER STANDING AVAILABLE ON THE SUBJECT. HE ACCORDINGLY URGED THA T SUCH UNSUITABLE REVISIONAL ORDER REQUIRES TO BE QUASHED. 6. THE LEARNED CITDR FOR THE REVENUE, ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED UPON THE REVISIONAL ORDER AND SUBMITTED THAT SECTIO N 54 & 54F OF THE ACT HAS BEEN AMENDED BY THE FINANCE (NO.2) ACT, 2014 W.E.F. A.Y. 2015-16 WHEREBY THE BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION AVAIL ABLE IN RESPECT OF PURCHASE/CONSTRUCTION IS RESTRICTED ONLY WITH RE SPECT TO ONE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE AND THAT SHOULD BE LOCATED IN IND IA. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE BENEFIT MADE AVAILABLE TO THE AS SESSEE IN RESPECT OF TWO FLATS, THEREFORE, IS IN CONTRAVENTION OF AME NDED SECTION 54/54F OF THE ACT AND CONSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE AO WAS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS PREJUDICIAL TO TH E INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. 7. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIO NS. THE JURISDICTION ASSUMED BY THE PCIT UNDER S.263 OF THE ACT IS UNDER CHALLENGE HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AS NOTED ABOVE . IT IS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT WHILE TWO ADJOINING FLATS CAN BE REGARDED AS TWO RESIDENTIAL UNITS CONSTRUCTED BY THE DEVELOPER, BUT IN EFFECT, CONSTITUTES ONLY ONE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE OF THE ASS ESSEE. THE VIEW HAS BEEN CONSISTENTLY TAKEN IN LARGE NUMBER OF JUDI CIAL PRECEDENTS AND HENCE, THE ACTION OF THE AO IS CONSISTENT WITH THE PLAUSIBLE VIEW AS HELD BY THE COURTS AND TRIBUNALS. 8. WE STRAIGHTWAY FIND MERIT IN THE PLEA OF THE ASS ESSEE. IT IS TRITE THAT WHERE THE AO HAS TAKEN A VIEW WHICH IS P OSSIBLE AND PLAUSIBLE, THE ACTION OF THE AO CANNOT BE REGARDED AS ERRONEOUS PER SE. CONSEQUENTLY, THE TWIN CONDITIONS OF ORDER BEING (I ) ERRONEOUS AS WELL AS (II) PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE, DOES NOT ITA NO. 25/RPR/2021 (SURESH CHAND SURANA VS. ACIT) A.Y. 2016-17 - 8 - CO-EXIST. HENCE, THE JURISDICTION USURPED BY THE P CIT IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW. THE RELIANCE PLACED ON THE AME NDMENT CARRIED OUT BY FINANCE (NO.2) ACT, 2014 IS GROSSLY MISPLACE D. THE INTERPRETATION RENDERED BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCHES AND THE HONBLE HIGH COURTS IS ON THE POINT AS TO WHAT CONSTITUTES A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE MAY COMPRISE OF SEVERAL RESIDENTIAL UNITS IF USED AND CONSUMMATED COLLECTIVELY AS RESID ENTIAL HOUSE. THE DECISIONS QUOTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE SQUA RELY APPLY TO THE FACT SITUATION. THE AMENDMENT IN SECTION 54F OF TH E ACT HAS MERELY CURTAILED THE HOLDING OF RESIDENTIAL HOUSE AT THE S ALE OF ORIGINAL ASSET. THE INTERPRETATION OF WHAT CONSTITUTES RES IDENTIAL HOUSE HAS NOT BEEN DISPLACED BY THE AMENDMENT PER SE. WE THUS SEE NO ERROR IN THE ACTION OF THE AO. THE SUPERVISORY JURISDICT ION EXERCISED UNDER S.263 OF THE ACT IS THUS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN L AW. CONSEQUENTLY, THE REVISIONAL ORDER IS CANCELLED. 9. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED . SD/- SD/- (N. K. CHOUDHRY) (PRADIP KUMA R KEDIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER RAIPUR: DATED 06/09/2021 TRUE COPY S. K. SINHA / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- &. / REVENUE 2. / ASSESSEE (. )*+ , / CONCERNED CIT 4. ,- / CIT (A) /. 012 33*+4 *+#4 / DR, ITAT, RAIPUR 5. 267 8 / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER 4 SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT 4 RAIPUR (ON TOUR) THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 06/09/ 2021