Smt. Bhavna Hitesh Rawal, Ahmedabad V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(1)(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 2743/AHD/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6200 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-01-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 24-10-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Capital asset; Salary income
• Section: 143(3); 54F

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD SMC BENCH BEFORE: SHR I MAHAVIR PRASAD , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SMT. BHAVNA HITESH RAWAL, A - 501, PRATISHTHA APARTMENT, NR. BODAKDEV FIRE STATION, J.B. ROAD, BODAKDEV, AHMEDABAD PAN: ACEPR7744N (APPELLANT) VS THE ITO, WARD - 5(1)(1), AHMEDBAD (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : S H RI PRASOON K ABRA , SR. D . R. ASSESSEE BY: S H RI SUNIL TALATI , A.R. DATE OF HEARING : 04 - 12 - 2 017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30 - 01 - 2 018 / ORDER P ER : AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTA NT MEMBER : - THIS ASSESSEE S APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2013 - 14 , AR IS ES FROM ORDER OF THE CIT(A) , AHM EDABAD - 5 DATED 15 - 09 - 2016 , IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961; IN SHORT THE ACT . 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF AP PEAL: - I T A NO . 2743 / A HD/20 16 A SSE SSM ENT YEAR 2013 - 14 I.T.A NO. 2743 /AHD/20 16 A.Y. 2013 - 14 PAGE NO SMT. BHAVNA HITESH RAWAL VS. ITO 2 YOUR APPELLANT BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) - 5, AHMEDABADPRESENTS THIS APPEAL AGAINST THE SAME ON THE FOLLOWING AMONGST OTHER GROUNDS. 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING THE EXEMPTION U/S 54F OF THE ACT FOR PURCHASE OF LAND MEASURING 1397.76 SQ. YDS AT BLOCK NO. 133, AMBLI VILLAGE, AHMEDABAD AGAINST SALE OF GOLD ORNAMENTS OF RS. 35,03,347/ - RESULTING INTO ASSESSING LTCG OF RS.13,19,337/ - AFTER GIVING BENEFIT OF, INDEXATION. 2 . THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DENYING EXEMPTION U/S 54F OF THE ACT ON THE GROUND THAT THE APPELLANT WAS OWNER OF TWO RESIDENTIAL FLATSAT THE TIME OF CLAIMING EXEMPTION IS INCORRECT AS THE APPELLANT OWNED ONLY ONE RESIDENTIAL FLAT, WHILE IN ANOTHER FLAT T HE OWNERSHIP WAS OF HUF OF APPELLANT'S HUSBAND, HITESH RAWAL HUF. THE NAME OF THE WIFE WAS ONLY AS A SECOND NAME FOR CONVENIENCE/NOMINATION, SHE BEING MEMBER/COPARCENER OF THE HITESH RAWAL HUF. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD . CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN NOT ALLOWING EXEMPTION U/S 54F OF THE ACT. THE IMPUGNED ADDITION CONFIRMED BY LD. CIT(A) W.R.T. LTCG OF RS.13,14,337/ - BE DELETED AND THE EXEMPTION SO NOT GRANTED BEING INVALID ON FACTS AND LAW, THE SAME BE ALLOWED NOW. 3. A S BOTH THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ARE INTERCONNECTED, SO, FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, THE SAME ARE ADJUDICATED TOGETHER. 4 . IN THIS CASE, RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING INCOME OF RS. 13 ,61, 500/ - WAS FILED ON 30 TH JULY, 2013. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE CA SE WAS SELECTED UNDER SCRUTINY BY ISSUING OF NOTICE U/S. 143(2) OF THE ACT ON 23 RD SEPTEMBER, 2014. THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN INCOME FROM SALARY, HOUSE PROPERTY AND OTHER SOURCES. DURING THE COURSE OF A SSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, TH E ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED T HAT ASS ESSE HAS PURCHASED LAND IN AMBLI VILLAGE, AHMEDABAD FOR RS. 82 , 53 , 270/ - FOR CONSTRUCTION OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. REGARDING SOURCE OF INVESTMENT IN THE AFORESAID PROPERTY THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT SHE HA D OBTAINED LOAN OF RS. 47 LACS FROM HER HU SBAND SHRI HITESH M RAWAL AND T HE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS. 35 , 03 , 347/ - WAS OBTAINED ON SALE OF I.T.A NO. 2743 /AHD/20 16 A.Y. 2013 - 14 PAGE NO SMT. BHAVNA HITESH RAWAL VS. ITO 3 GOLD TO CHOKSHI AMBALAL GOVIND LAL. THE ASSESSEE HAD EXPLAINED THAT THE GOLD WAS OBTAINED ON VARIOUS OCCASIONS. THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN INDEXED COST OF ACQUIS ITION O F GOLD AT RS . 21 , 84 , 010/ - AND RS.13 , 19 , 337/ - AS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ARISES FROM SALE OF GOLD. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE REQUESTED FOR EXEMPTION OF RS. 13 , 19 , 337/ - U/S. 54F AS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ARISES FROM SALE OF GOLD WHICH HAS BE EN INVESTED IN PURCHASE OF LAND I N AMBLI VILLAGE, AHMEDAB A D FOR RS. 82,53,270/ - TO CONSTRUCT A RESIDENTIAL UNIT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DENIED T HE EXEMPTION U/S. 554F OF THE I. T. ACT ON THE GROUND THAT ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY OWNED TWO RESIDENTIAL HOUSES AS MENTIONED BELOW : - (I) SHARE IN ADIRAJ BUNGLOW 10 , AHMEDABAD (II) SHARE IN HIMALAYA ARCADE OFFICE 302 AND 303 (II) SHARE FLA T NO. A/501 AT PRATISHK SHA APARTMENT BODAKDEV, AH MEDABA D IN THIS CONNECTION T HE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED DURING THE COUR SE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THAT THE SAID PROPERTY A/501 PRATIS H KSHA IS OWNED BY H.M. RAVAL , HUF AND NAME OF THE ASSESSEE IS INCLUDED ONLY FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AS JOINT HOLDER AND THE PAYMENT HAS BEEN MADE BY HITESH RAVAL . THE ASSESSING OFFICER HA D NO T ACCEPTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT SHE WAS HAVING OWNERSHIP OF TWO RESIDENTIAL HOUSE AT THE TIME OF PURCHASE OF AFORESAID LAND IN AMBLI VILLAGE, AHMEDABAD. CONSEQUENTLY THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONCL UDED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HA D ALREADY OWNED TWO RESIDENTIAL HOUSES , THEREFORE, NO EXEMPTION U/S. 54F WAS AVAILABLE FOR INVESTMEN T ON LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF R S. 13 , 19 , 337/ - I.T.A NO. 2743 /AHD/20 16 A.Y. 2013 - 14 PAGE NO SMT. BHAVNA HITESH RAWAL VS. ITO 4 5. AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD . CIT(A) H A S SUSTAINED THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY OBSERVING AS UNDER. DECISION: 4.3. IN THIS CASE, THE AO HAS DENIED THE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S.54F OF THE ACT ON THE GROUND THAT ASSESSEE WAS OWNER OF TWO RESIDENTIAL FLATS AT THE TIME OF CLAIMING EXEMPTION U/S.54F OF THE ACT. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE HAS CLAIMED EXEMPTION U/S.54 OF THE ACT FOR PURCHASE OF LAND MEASURING 1397.76 SQR. YRDS. AGAINST SALE OF GGLD ORNAMENTS OF RS.35,03,347/ - RESULTING INTO LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS.13,19,337/ - . T HE AO HAS NOTICED THAT AT THE TIME OF PURCHASE OF NEW LAND ASSESSEE WAS HAVING OWNERSHIP OF TWO RESIDENTIAL HOUSES I.E. 10, ADIRAJ BUNGALOW AND A/501 PRATISHTA APARTMENT. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS OWNED TWO RESIDENTIAL HOUSES THE AO HAS HELD THAT NO EXEMPTION U/S.54F IS AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. 4.4. THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT IS THAT THE ASSESSEE IN FACT OWNED ONLY ONE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE JOINTLY WITH HUSBAND SHRI HITESH RAVAL AT BUNGALOW NO. 10 ADIRAJ, TALTEJ, AHMEDABAD. IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE VIRTUAL OWNER OF PRATISHTA FLAT IS HITESH RAVAL, HUF AS THE INVESTMENT IS MADE BY HUF AND IN THE RETURN OF INCOME THESE FACTS ARE REFLECTED IN THE A.Y. AS BACK AS 2006 - 07. IT IS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE JOINT NAME IS KEPT OF MRS. BHAVNABEN RAVAL ONLY OUT OF ABUNDANT PRECAUTION FOR MEETING OUT ANY UNTOWARD INCIDENT IN FUTURE AND ALSO SAFEGUARDING FAMILY INTEREST AND ALSO FOR BELIEF IN SHAGUN PURPOSE FOR THE WHOLE FAMILY. IT IS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT FOLLOWING THE PRINCIPLE OF SUBSTANCE OVER FORM IT CAN BE CON STRUED THAT APPELLANT IS OWNER OF ONE HOUSE ONLY ON THE DATE OF SALE OF ORIGINAL ASSET. IN THIS REGARD THE APPELLANT HAS RELIED UPON VARIOUS JUDGMENTS AS UNDER: - (1) CIT V/S RAVINDER KUMAR ARORA 342 ITR 0038 DELHI HIGH COURT (2) DR. P.K. VASAN THI RANGARAJAN V/S. CIT 252 CTR 0336 (MADRAS HIGH COURT) (3) CIT V/S. PODAR CEMENTS PVT. LTD. AND ETC. 226 ITR 626 (SUPREME COURT) (1997) (4) LATE MIR GULAM ALI KHAN V/S CIT 56 CTR (A.P.) 144 4.5. THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND SUBMISSIONS ARE CONSIDE RED. FOR READY REFERENCE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 54F ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER: - '54F. (1) [SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SUB - SECTION (4), WHERE, IN THE CASE OF AN ASSESSEE BEING AN INDIVIDUAL OR A HINDU UNDIVIDED FAMILY], THE CAPITAL GAIN ARISES FROM TH E TRANSFER OF ANY LONG - TERM CAPITAL ASSET, NOT BEING A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE HEREINAFTER IN THIS SECTION REFERRED TO AS THE ORIGINAL ASSET), AND THE ASSESSEE HAS, WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR BEFORE OR [TWO YEARS] AFTER THE DATE ON WHICH THE TRANSFER TOOK PLACE PURCHASED, OR HAS WITHIN A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS AFTER THAT DATE [CONSTRUCTED, ONE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE IN INDIA] (HEREINAFTER IN THIS SECTION REFERRED TO AS THE NEW ASSET), THE CAPITAL GAIN SHALL BE DEAL WITH IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING PROVISIONS OF T HIS SECTION, THAT IS TO SAY, - (A) IF THE COST OF THE NEW ASSET IS NOT LESS THAN THE NET CONSIDERATION IN RESPECT OF THE ORIGINAL ASSET, THE WHOLE OF SUCH CAPITAL GAIN SHALL NOT BE CHARGED UNDER SECTION 45; (B) IF THE COST OF THE NEW ASSET IS LESS THAN THE NET CONSIDERATION IN RESPECT OF THE ORIGINAL ASSET, SO MUCH OF THE CAPITAL GAIN AS BEARS I.T.A NO. 2743 /AHD/20 16 A.Y. 2013 - 14 PAGE NO SMT. BHAVNA HITESH RAWAL VS. ITO 5 TO THE WHOLE OF THE CAPITAL GAIN THE SAME PROPORTION AS THE COST OF THE NEW ASSET BEARS TO THE NET CONSIDERATION, SHALL NOT BE CHARGED UNDER SECTION 45;' [PROVIDED THA T NOTHING CONTAINED IN THIS SUB - SECTION SHALL APPLY WHERE - (A) THE ASSESSEE, - (I) OWNS MORE THAN ONE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE, OTHER THAN THE NEW ASSET, ON THE DATE OF TRANSFER OF THE ORIGINAL ASSET; OR (II) PURCHASES ANY RESIDENTIAL HOUSE, OTHER THAN T HE NEW ASSET, WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE DATE OF TRANSFER OF THE ORIGINAL ASSET; OR (III) CONSTRUCTS ANY RESIDENTIAL HOUSE, OTHER THAN THE NEW ASSET, WITHIN A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS AFTER THE DATE OF TRANSFER OF THE ORIGINAL ASSET; AND (B) THE I NCOME FROM SUCH RESIDENTIAL HOUSE, OTHER THAN THE ONE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE OWNED ON THE DATE OF TRANSFER OF THE ORIGINAL ASSET, IS CHARGEABLE UNDER THE HEAD 'INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY'.] SECTION 54F OF THE ACT PROVIDES FOR EXEMPTION OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN S ON TRANSFERS OF ANY ASSET, IF THE NET SALE CONSIDERATION IS REINVESTED IN ACQUISITION OF A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. ONE OF THE CONDITIONS IN ORDER TO CLAIM THE BENEFIT OF THIS EXEMPTION IS THAT ON THE DATE OF TRANSFERS OF THE ASSET, THE TAX PAYER SHOULD NOT O WN MORE THAN .ONE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. IN THE INSTANT CASE THE APPELLANT HAS JOINTLY OWN TWO RESIDENTIAL HOUSES AND QUESTION ARISES WHETHER CAN THE HOUSES WHICH ARE JOINTLY OWNED BE REGARDED AS A HOUSE WHICH IS OWNED BY THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT HAS MAINL Y CONTENDED THAT THE WHOLE INVESTMENT IN ONE OF THE HOUSE IS MADE BY HITESH RAVAL HUF AND THIS HUF IS VIRTUAL OWNER OF THE HOUSE. HOWEVER, FOR ALL LEGAL AND TECHNICAL PURPOSES IT CAN BE SAID THAT THE APPELLANT IS OWNER OF THE HOUSE WHICH SHE JOINTLY OWNED WITH THE HUF. FOR ALL LEGAL PURPOSES IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE APPELLANT IS AN OWNER FOR NAME SAKE ONLY AND DOESN'T HAVE ANY RIGHT IN THE PROPERTY. A JOINT OWNERSHIP WOULD AMOUNT TO OWNERSHIP OF THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE, FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSIDERING ONE OW NS A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE TO FULFILL THE CONDITION OF SECTION 54F OF THE ACT. THE CASE LAWS CITED BY THE APPELLANT ARE ALL IN RESPECT OF THE ISSUE WHETHER THE BENEFIT U/S.54F OF THE ACT IS AVAILABLE TO AN ASSESSEE IF THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED NEW PROPERTY JO INTLY ALONGWITH HIS WIFE. THEREFORE THESE DECISIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE INSTANT CASE. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE A.O. IS JUSTIFIED AND THE EXEMPTION REJECTED BY THE AO IS CONFIRMED. THUS THE GROUNDS OF APPEA L ARE DISMISSED. 6. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL HAS SUBMITTED PAPER BOOK CONTAINING INFORMATION REGARDING SUBMISSION MADE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), DETAIL OF PAYMENT ALONG WITH BANK STATEMENT OF HITESH H RAWAL, HUF , COPY O F RETURN OF INCOME, I.T.A NO. 2743 /AHD/20 16 A.Y. 2013 - 14 PAGE NO SMT. BHAVNA HITESH RAWAL VS. ITO 6 COPY OF SALE DEED OF PROPERTY ETC. HE HAS ALSO PLACED RELIANCE O N THE FOLLOWING JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS : (I) ITO VS. DR. VANDANA BHULCHANDANI (2016) 72 TAXMANN.COM 281 (MUMBAI TRIBUNAL) (II) DR. P.K. VASANTHI R A NGARAJAN VS. CIT , APPEAL NOO 1435 OF 2005 (HIGH COURT OF MADRAS) (III) DIT(INTL. TAXATION) VS. MRS. JENNIFER BHIDE (2011) 15 TAXMANN.COM 82 (KARNATAKA) HE CONTENDED THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING THE EXEMPTION U/S. 54F OF THE ACT ON PURCHASE OF LAND AGAINST THE SALE OF GOLD ORNAMENTS WHICH RESULTED IN LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS. 13 ,1 9 , 337/ - . ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS VEHEMENTLY CONTENDED THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED TO GET EXEMPTION U/S. 54F OF THE ACT AS IT IS CLEARLY EVIDENT F O RM THE DOCUMENTS MENTIONED IN ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT SHE OWNED MORE THAN ONE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE AT THE TIM E OF PURCHASE OF NEW PLOT OF LAND. HE HA S ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF HON BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CA SE OF M.J. SHIVA N I VS. CIT BANGALORE (2015) 53 TAXMANN.COM 318 (SC) 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD CAREFULLY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED DUR ING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THAT AT THE TIME OF PURCHASE OF AFORESAID NEW PROPERTY THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING OWNERSHIP OF TW O RESIDENTIAL HOUSES ,THEREFORE, NO EXEMPTION U/S. 54F IS AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. SECTION 54F OF THE ACT PROVIDES FOR EXEMPTION OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON THE TRANSFER OF ANY ASSET IF THE NET SALE CONSIDERATION IS RE - I.T.A NO. 2743 /AHD/20 16 A.Y. 2013 - 14 PAGE NO SMT. BHAVNA HITESH RAWAL VS. ITO 7 INVESTED IN ACQUISITION OF A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. ONE OF THE CONDITION IN ORDER TO CLAIM THE BENEFIT OF THIS EXEMPTION IS THAT ON THE DATE OF ACQUISITION OF THE ASSET , THE ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT OWN MORE THAN ONE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE S . IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, SHE HAS JOINTLY OWNED TWO RESIDENTIAL HOUSE S AND THE QUESTION ARISES WHETHER THE HOUSE WHICH ARE JOINTLY OWNED BE REGARDED AS A HOUSE WHICH IS OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THIS CONNECTION , WE HAVE PERUSED THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS REFERRED BY THE LD. COUNSEL A ND OBSERVED THAT FACTS OF THIS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS WERE DI STINGUISHABLE FROM THE FACTS IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. IN ADDITION TO THIS , WE OBSERVED THAT THE FINDINGS LAID D OWN IN THE DECISION OF HON BLE SUPREME C OURT IN THE CASE OF M.J. SHIVANI VS. C IT, BANGALORE 2015 53 TA XMANN.COM 318 (SC) ARE SQUARELY APPLICABLE TO THE FACT OF THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND THAT IN THE AFORESAID DECISION OF THE H ON BLE APEX C OURT , IT WAS HELD THAT WHERE ASSESSEE ON DATE OF SALE OF LONG - TERM ASSES OWNS MORE THA N ONE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE EVEN JOINTLY W I TH ANOTHER PERSON , THE BENEFIT U/S. 54F ARISING FROM SALE OF ASSET WAS TO BE REJECTED. W E CONSIDERED THAT EXEMPTION U/S. 54F HAS BEEN GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE WITH A VIEW TO ENCOURAGE CONSTRUCTION OF ONE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE . THE EXEMPTION PROVIDED U/S. 54F WOULD NOT BE AVAILABLE IN A CASE WHERE THE ASSESSEE ALREADY OWNED MORE THAN ONE RESIDENTIAL HOUSES. EVEN IF , OTHER RESIDENTIAL HOUSE MAY BE E I THER OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE WHOLLY OR PARTIALLY. UNDER T HESE CIRCUMSTANCES, T H E ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE CONCESSION PROVIDED U/S. 54F OF THE ACT. WE HAVE ALSO NOTICED THAT PROVISO TO SECTION 54F OF THE ACT CLEARLY PROVIDE THAT NO DEDUCTION SHALL BE I.T.A NO. 2743 /AHD/20 16 A.Y. 2013 - 14 PAGE NO SMT. BHAVNA HITESH RAWAL VS. ITO 8 ALLOWED IF THE ASSESSEE OWNS MORE THAN ONE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. AFTER CONSIDE RING THE ABOVE FACTS AND LEGAL FINDINGS ELABORATED SUPRA IN THIS ORDER, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT LD. CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTER FERE IN THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS REJECTED 8. I N THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DI S MISSED. ORDER PR ONOUNCED IN THE OPEN C OURT ON 30 - 01 - 201 8 SD/ - SD/ - ( MAHAVIR PRASAD ) ( AMARJIT SINGH ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD : DATED 30 /01/2018 / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. ASSESSEE 2. REVENUE 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , / ,