N.Ravi Arumugavelan, CHENNAI V. ITO International Taxation 2(1), CHENNAI

ITA 2888/CHNY/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7795 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-07-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 12-10-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Capital Gains
• Section: 15; 143(3)

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH : CHENNAI . . . , , [BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ] ./I.T.A. NO. 2888/CHNY2018 ! / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2015-2016. SHRI. N. RAVI ARUMUGAVELAN, C/O. P. KRISHNAN & ASSOCIATES, CAS, NEW NO.20, 2 ND STREET, RAGHAVAN COLONY, ASHOK NAGAR, CHENNAI 600 083. [PAN AKZPR 9452J] VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION WARD 2(1) BSNL BUILDING, GREAMS ROAD, CHENNAI 600 006. ( / APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) '# $ % / APPELLANT BY : SHRI. G. BASKAR, ADVOCATE &' '# $ % /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI. SRIDHAR DORA, IRS, JCIT. ( ) $ * /DATE OF HEARING : 12-06-2019 +,! $ * /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 15-07-2019 / O R D E R PER INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DIRECTED AG AINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-1 6, CHENNAI ITA NO.2888/2018 :- 2 -: (CIT(A) FOR SHORT) DATED 27.09.2018 FOR THE ASSES SMENT YEAR (AY) 2015-2016. 2. THE ASSESSEE RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL : 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED I N CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER RESTRICTING THE EXEMPTION CLAIMED U/S.54F TO ONLY ONE RESIDENTIAL UNIT OF RS.34 04,65 1/- INSTEAD OF ALLOWING THE EXEMPTION CLAIMED IN TOTO. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) OUGHT T O HAVE APPRECIATED THE FACT THAT THE SALE PROCEEDS WERE IN VESTED BY THE APPELLANT IN CONSTRUCTION OF ONLY ONE RESIDENTIAL P ROPERTY AND NOT 4 RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES AS ERRONEOUSLY ASSUMED BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) FAILED IN NOT CONSIDERING A PLETHORA OF AUTHORITIES PLACED BEFORE HIM WHICH SAY THAT A BUILDING CONSISTING OF SEVERAL UNITS HAVING COMMON PASSAGE AND UNITY OF STRUCTURE WAS ONLY ONE HOUSE. 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED I N DISPOSING OFF THE APPEAL HURRIEDLY WITHOUT EVEN CONSIDERING A SINGLE AUTHORITY PLACED BEFORE HIM WHICH SHOWS THE PRECONCEIVED NOTI ONS WITH WHICH HE DISPOSED OF THE APPEAL. 5. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) OUGHT T O HAVE DELETED THE ENTIRE INTEREST LEVIED U/S.234B AMOUNTI NG TO RS.4,34,280/-. 6. ANY OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE ADDUCED AT THE TIM E OF HEARING. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE AS UNDER: THE APPELLANT IS AN INDIVIDUAL, WHO IS AN NON RESID ENT INDIAN. HE FILED RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE AY 2015-16 ON 2 1.07.2015 DISCLOSING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 5,570/-. AGAINST TH E SAID RETURN OF ITA NO.2888/2018 :- 3 -: INCOME, THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED BY INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 2(1) , CHENNAI VIDE ORDER D ATED 22.12.2017 PASSED U/S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT THE ACT) DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 64,18,705/-. WHILE DOING SO, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD RESTRICTED THE DEDUCTION CLAI MED U/S.54F OF THE ACT TO THE EXTENT OF G34,04,651/- AS AGAINST CLAIM OF EXEMPTION OF CAPITAL GAINS OF G1,28,17,791/-. 4. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE ISSUE ARE AS UNDER:- DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YE AR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE APPELLANT HAD SOLD PLOT MEASUR ING 4800 SQ.FT. AT RAM NAGAR SOUTH EXTENSION, PALLIKARANAI, CHENNAI F OR CONSIDERATION OF G1,35,00,000/- ON 06.02.2015. THE SALE CONSIDERA TION WAS INVESTED IN THE ACQUISITION OF FOUR SEPARATE RESIDENTIAL UN ITS IN A BUILDING OF TWO STORIED HOUSE IN THE GROUND FLOOR AND FIRST FLO OR IN PLOT NO.68A AND 68B, RAM NAGAR NORTH EXTENSION, 8 TH MAIN ROAD, VELACHERRY, CHENNAI. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE OPINION THAT EXEMPTION U/S.54F OF THE ACT CAN BE CLAIMED ONLY TO THE EXTEN T OF ONE RESIDENTIAL UNIT TAKING COGNIZANCE OF THE AMENDMENT BY FINANCE (NO.2) ACT, 2014 W.E.F. 01.04.2015. ACCORDINGLY, RESTRICTED THE ADD ITION IN RESPECT OF ITA NO.2888/2018 :- 4 -: ONE RESIDENTIAL UNIT REJECTING THE CONTENTION OF T HE ASSESSEE THAT IT IS ONLY ONE SINGLE RESIDENTIAL UNIT. 5. BEING AGGRIEVED, AN APPEAL WAS FILED BEFORE THE LD . CIT(A) CONTENDING THAT ASSESSEE HAD INVESTED SALE CONSIDE RATION IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF ONE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY, AS IT HA S GOT ONLY ONE COMMON PASSAGE AND UNITY OF STRUCTURE PLACING RELIA NCE ON THE DECISIONS OF HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE C ASE OF SHIV NARAIN CHAUDARI VS. CWT, 108 ITR 104, HONBLE GUJARAT HI GH COURT IN THE CASE OF CWT VS. S.D. JADEJA, 283 ITR 45, HONBLE AN DHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SYED ALI ADIL, 325 ITR 415, HONBLE KERALA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. NAJIMA NIZAR, 197 ITR 0258 AND HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. GIT A DUGGAL, 357 ITR 153. UPON CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS, THE LD. CIT( A) HAD COME TO CONCLUSION THAT ASSESSEE HAD CONSTRUCTED FOUR FLATS , CONSIDERING EACH RESIDENTIAL UNIT IS INDEPENDENT UNIT, SINCE EACH U NIT HAS GOT SEPARATE ELECTRICITY BOARD CONNECTION, CONFIRMED THE FINDING S OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 6. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE APPELLANT IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US IN THE PRESENT APPEAL. IT IS CONTENTED BEFORE US THAT HOU SE MAY CONSIST OF MORE THAN ONE SELF CONTAINED DWELLING UNIT AND THE RE IS UNITY OF ITA NO.2888/2018 :- 5 -: STRUCTURE, HENCE IT WILL NOT MAKE THE HOUSE INTO SE VERAL HOUSES AND RELIANCE IN THIS REGARD WERE PLACED ON THE DECISION S OF HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SHIV NARAIN CHAUDARI (SUPRA), HONBLE ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SYED ALI ADIL (SUPRA), BOMBAY BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE O F FOURTH WTO VS. M.V. PATEL, 21 ITD 104, HONBLE KERALA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF NAJIMA NIZAR (SUPRA), HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN T HE CASE OF GITA DUGGAL (SUPRA) AND BANGALORE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF BHATKAL RAMARAO PRAKASH VS. ITO, 102 TAXMANN.COM 14 5. 7. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. SR. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESE NTATIVE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORIT IES. 8. WE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATE RIAL ON RECORD. THE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL REVOLVES A ROUND WHETHER THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR EXEMPTION U/S.54F OF THE A CT FOR ENTIRE RESIDENTIAL UNIT. THE SALE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED FROM SALE OF ORIGINAL ASSET WAS INVESTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE ACQUISITI ON OF AN RESIDENTIAL BUILDING WHICH IS TWO STORIED HOUSE IN THE GROUND FLOOR AND FIRST FLOOR IN PLOT NO.68A AND 68B, RAM NAGAR NORTH EXTENSION, 8 TH MAIN ROAD, VELACHERRY, CHENNAI. ADMITTEDLY, THIS BUILDING GOT FOUR RESIDENTIAL UNITS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ALLOWED EXEMPTION ONLY IN RESPECT OF ONE RESIDENTIAL UNIT TREATING THAT THE FOUR RESIDEN TIAL UNITS HAS FOUR ITA NO.2888/2018 :- 6 -: INDEPENDENT RESIDENTIAL UNITS. THEREFORE THE ISSUE THAT COMES UP FOR CONSIDERATION IS WHETHER BUILDING CONSISTING OF SEV ERAL RESIDENTIAL UNITS CAN BE CONSIDERED AS ONE HOUSE PROPERTY. THE HON BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF D.M. CHANDRASHEKHAR & R.M. SAHAI, (1977) 108 ITR 104 HELD THAT WHEN BUILDING IS CONNECTED BY COMMON PAS SAGE AND THE BUILDING HAS UNITY OF STRUCTURE AND THE BUILDING ARE CONTIGUOUS TO EACH OTHER AND ARE WITHIN COMMON BOU NDARY AND IRRESPECTIVE OF THE FACT THAT THE BUILDING HAS DIF FERENT MUNICIPAL NUMBERS AND DIFFERENT RESIDENTIAL UNITS, THE HOUSE CAN BE CONSIDERED AS ONE SINGLE HOUSE. THE RELEVANT PARAS OF THE JUDGMENT ARE REPRODUCED HEREUNDER:- 9. IT IS UNDISPUTED THAT BOTH PORTIONS OF THE BUI LDING BEARING DOOR NOS. 92 AND 92-A, DARBHANGA CASTLE, AR E CONTIGUOUS TO EACH OTHER AND ARE WITHIN A COMMON BO UNDARY AND A COMMON COMPOUND. THOUGH THERE ARE FOUR RESIDE NTAL UNITS WITHIN THAT BUILDING, THEY ARE CONNECTED BY A COMMON PASSAGE AND THE BUILDING HAS UNITY OF STRUCTURE. THAT THE PORTION OF THE BUILDING BEARING DOOR NO. 9 2 WAS BUILT IN 1960 WHILE THE OTHER PORTION BEARING D OOR NO. 92-A WAS BUILT IN THE YEAR 1963, WOULD NOT HAVE ANY RELEVANCE TO DETERMINE WHETHER BOTH THOSE PORTIONS TOGETHER CONSTITUTE A HOUSE. A HOUSE MAY B E BUILT IN STAGES ; A PORTION OF IT MAY BE BUILT IN O NE YEAR AND ANOTHER PORTION OF IT MAY BE BUILT AFTER AN INT ERVAL OF SEVERAL YEARS. THAT ONE PORTION OF THE BUILDING BEARS ONE DOOR NUMBER, WHILE THE OTHER PORTION BEARS ANOTHER DOOR NUMBER AND THAT THESE TWO PORTIONS ARE ASSESSED SEPARATELY BY THE MUNICIPALITY, ARE NO DOU BT RELEVANT CIRCUMSTANCES IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THESE TWO PORTIONS CONSTITUTE ONE HOUSE OR TWO DIFFERENT HOUSES, BUT THESE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE NOT DECISIVE. T HE ITA NO.2888/2018 :- 7 -: TRIBUNAL HAS, IN OUR OPINION, ATTACHED EXCESSIVE IMPORTANCE TO THESE TWO CIRCUMSTANCES. AS THESE TWO PORTIONS OF THE BUILDING ARE CONTIGUOU S AND SITUATE IN THE SAME COMPOUND AND WITHIN COMMON BOUNDARIES AND HAVE UNITY OF STRUCTURE THERE IS NO REASON WHY THEY SHOULD NOT TOGETHER BE REGARDED AS CONSTITUTING ONE HOUSE. 10. BEARING IN MIND THE CAUTION UTTERED BY LAWRENCE J. IN ANNICOLA INVESTMENTS LTD.'S CASE [1965] 3 ALL ER 85 0 ; [1966] 2 WLR 1204 THAT THE SAME WORD OCCURRING IN D IFFERENT ENACTMENTS HAS TO BE GIVEN A MEANING IN RELATION TO THE CONTEXT, THE OBJECT AND THE PURPOSE OF THAT ENACTME NT, WE SHALL ADVERT TO A FEW DECISIONS IN WHICH THE QUESTI ON WHETHER A BUILDING IN WHICH THERE ARE SEVERAL DWELLING UNIT S, CAN BE REGARDED AS ONE HOUSE, WAS CONSIDERED. 11. IN KIMBER V. ADMANS [1900] 1 CH D 412 (CA) THE FACTS WERE THESE : THE PLAINTIFFS WERE OWNERS OF TWO PLOT S OF LANDS FORMING PART OF A BUILDING ESTATE, AND HAD BUILT A HOUSE ON EACH OF THESE PLOTS. THE DEFENDANT HAD PURCHASED TH E TWO REMAINING PLOTS IN THAT BUILDING ESTATE. HE PROPOSE D TO ERECT ON THOSE PLOTS FOUR BLOCKS OF RESIDENTIAL FLATS. EA CH BLOCK WAS TO CONTAIN TWO FLATS ON THE GROUND FLOOR AND TWO FL ATS ON THE FIRST FLOOR. THE PLAINTIFFS PLEADED THAT THE DEFEND ANT WAS BOUND BY A COVENANT THAT NOT MORE THAN TEN HOUSES S HALL BE ERECTED ON THE SAID FOUR PLOTS. COZENSHARDY J. HAD HELD THAT THERE WAS NO BREACH OF THE COVENANT BY THE DEFENDAN T AND THAT THE BUILDING OF THE NATURE WHICH HE INTENDED T O BUILD WAS A DWELLING HOUSE THOUGH EACH BUILDING WAS TO CO NTAIN A NUMBER OF SEPARATE MESSUAGES. IN APPEAL, WHILE UPHO LDING THAT DECISION, LINDLEY M. R. OBSERVED : ' WHAT DOES THAT (COVENANT) MEAN ? DOES IT REFER TO THE MODE IN WHICH THE BUILDING TO BE ERECTED IS TO BE SUB-DIVIDED OR LET, OR DOES IT REFER TO THE AGGREGA TE OF THE ROOMS OR WHATEVER THE CONTENTS OF THE BUILDING MAY CONSIST OF ? I THINK THAT THE LATTER IS THE MEA NING. THE HOUSE IS THE WHOLE AMALGAMATION ...... IT APPLI ES, NOT TO THE INTERIOR PORTIONS OF THE BUILDING, BUT T O THE WHOLE BUILDING. 12. IN BENABO V. MAYOR, ALDERMEN AND BURGESSES OF T HE BOROUGH OF WOOD GREEN [1945] 2 ALL ER 162 (KB), THE FACTS WERE THESE : THE LOCAL AUTHORITY IN WHOSE AREA A HO USE WAS SITUATED, SERVED A NOTICE UPON ITS LANDLORD TO CARR Y OUT ITA NO.2888/2018 :- 8 -: CERTAIN SPECIFIED REPAIRS TO VARIOUS PARTS OF THE B UILDING. AT THE DATE OF THE NOTICE THE HOUSE WAS LET TO TWO SEP ARATE TENANTS, ONE OF WHOM OCCUPIED THE GROUND FLOOR AND THE OTHER THE UPPER FLOOR. THE HOUSE WAS NOT STRUCTURAL LY DIVIDED, BOTH TENANTS USING THE SAME ENTRANCE DOOR, HALL AND INTERNAL CORRIDOR. THE LOCAL AUTHORITY HAD, HOWEVER, RATED T HE TWO PARTS OF THE HOUSE AS SEPARATE DWELLINGS. THE LANDL ORD FAILED TO CARRY OUT THE WORK REQUIRED BY THAT NOTICE AND T HE LOCAL AUTHORITY CARRIED OUT THE WORK AND CALLED UPON THE LANDLORD TO PAY THE COST OF SUCH WORK UNDER THE HOUSING ACT, 1936. THE LANDLORD PLEADED THAT THE NOTICE AND THE DEMAND WHICH FOLLOWED IT WERE NOT VALID SINCE SEPARATE NOTICES A ND SEPARATE DEMANDS IN RESPECT OF EACH TENEMENT WAS REQUIRED AN D THAT THE LANDLORD WAS ENTITLED TO KNOW THE COST OF EFFEC TING THE REPAIRS FOR EACH OF THE TENEMENTS. IT WAS HELD IN T HAT CASE THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE HOUSING ACT, 1936, THE FACT THAT THE HOUSE CONSISTED OF TWO SEPARATE DWELLINGS, DID NOT ENTITLE THE LANDLORD TO SEPARATE NOTICES IN RESPECT OF EACH DWELLING AND THAT AS THE ACT WAS CONCERNED WITH ' HOUSES ' A ND NOT ' DWELLINGS ' ONLY ONE NOTICE WAS NECESSARY IN RESPEC T OF THE ENTIRE HOUSE AND SEPARATE NOTICES WERE NOT NECESSAR Y IN RESPECT OF EACH DWELLING. HUMPHREYS J. OBSERVED THU S : ' IN FACT, THIS WAS A HOUSE WHICH WAS USED BY TWO SEPARATE FAMILIES. THE LANDLORD, THE PERSON HAVING CONTROL, HAD LET CERTAIN ROOMS IN THE HOUSE TO ONE PERSON AND CERTAIN OTHER ROOMS TO ANOTHER PERSON. DOES THAT MAKE THE HOUSE TWO HOUSES ? IN MY OPINION , EMPHATICALLY NOT. IT REMAINED ONE HOUSE. I THINK TH AT IS THE ANSWER, AND A COMPLETE ANSWER, TO THIS POINT. ' 13. IN OKEREKE V. BOROUGH OF BRENT [1966] 1 ALL ER 150 ; [1966] 2 WLR 169 (CA) THE FACTS WERE THESE. A BUILD ING CONTAINING THREE FLOORS AND A BASEMENT HAD BEEN OCC UPIED AT ONE TIME AS A SINGLE HOUSE. SUBSEQUENTLY, IT WAS DI VIDED INTO THREE SEPARATE SELF-CONTAINED DWELLINGS WHICH WERE RATED SEPARATELY. TWO OF THESE WERE EACH OCCUPIED BY A DI FFERENT FAMILY AND A THIRD WAS OCCUPIED BY MEMBERS OF MORE THAN ONE FAMILY. THE RESPONDENT, BOROUGH, HAD ISSUED A N OTICE TO THE OWNER OF THAT BUILDING UNDER SECTION 15 OF THE HOUSING ACT REQUIRING HIM TO EFFECT CERTAIN IMPROVEMENTS. T HE OWNER CHALLENGED THAT NOTICE ON THE GROUND THAT THE PROPE RTY DID NOT FALL WITHIN SECTION 15 OF THAT ACT AS THE BUILD ING WAS A MERE COLLECTION OF HOUSES. THE COURT OF APPEAL BY A MAJORITY DECISION HELD THAT THE BUILDING CAME WITHIN THE MEA NING OF ITA NO.2888/2018 :- 9 -: THE WORD ' HOUSE ' UNDER SECTION 15 OF THE HOUSING ACT. SALMON L.J. OBSERVED THUS: ' INDEED, IN MY VIEW IT IS WRONG TO HOLD, IF WORDS HAVE ANY MEANING, THAT EACH TENEMENT IN A TENEMENT BLOCK IS A HOUSE. IT MAY BE, AS COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDEN T SUGGESTS, THAT THE OCCUPIER OF A TENEMENT SOMETIMES REFERS TO IT LOOSELY AS HIS HOUSE, JUST AS IT IS SA ID FIGURATIVELY THAT AN ENGLISHMAN'S HOME IS HIS CASTL E. THIS, HOWEVER, IS BESIDE THE POINT, FOR IT SEEMS TO ME AS IMPOSSIBLE TO HOLD THAT A SINGLE TENEMENT IS A HOUSE, AS IT WOULD BE TO HOLD THAT A SUBURBAN VILLA IS A CASTLE. ' THE AFORESAID DECISIONS ALSO SUPPORT THE VIEW WE HA VE TAKEN, NAMELY, THAT A HOUSE MAY CONSIST OF MORE THAN ONE S ELF- CONTAINED DWELLING UNIT AND THAT IF THERE IS UNITY OF STRUCTURE, THE MERE FACT THAT SUCH SELF-CONTAINED DWELLING UNI TS ARE OCCUPIED BY DIFFERENT PERSONS, WILL NOT MAKE THAT H OUSE INTO SEVERAL HOUSES. IN THE LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING DISCU SSION OUR ANSWER TO THE QUESTION REFERRED TO US IS PARTLY IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND PARTLY AGAINST IT AND IS AS FOLLOW S : THIS JUDGMENT WAS FOLLOWED BY HONBLE ANDHRA PRADES H HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SYED ALI ADIL (SUPRA), BOMBAY BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF FOURTH WTO (SUPRA ), HONBLE KERALA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF NAJIMA NIZAR (SUPRA ), HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GITA DUGGAL (SUPRA ) AND BANGALORE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF BHATKAL RAMARAO PRAKASH (SUPRA ). THUS IN THE LIGHT OF THESE SETTLED LEGAL POSITIONS, WE HOLD THAT THE INVESTMENT MADE B Y THE ASSESSEE IN PLOT NO.68A AND 68B, RAM NAGAR NORTH EXTENSION, 8 TH MAIN ROAD, VELACHERRY, CHENNAI CONSISTING ONLY ONE RESIDENTIAL UNIT WHICH QUALIFIES FOR EXEMPTION U/S.54F OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, WE HOLD THAT THE ITA NO.2888/2018 :- 10 -: APPELLANT IS ENTITLED FOR EXEMPTION FROM CAPITAL G AINS IN RESPECT OF THE ENTIRE INVESTMENT MADE IN RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY IN PLOT NO.68A AND 68B, RAM NAGAR NORTH EXTENSION, 8 TH MAIN ROAD, VELACHERRY, CHENNAI. ACCORDINGLY, WE ALLOW THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSES SEE. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 15TH DAY OF JULY, 2019, AT CH ENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . . . ) (N.R.S. GANESAN) /JUDICIAL MEMBER ( ) (INTURI RAMA RAO) /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER - ) / CHENNAI . / DATED:15 TH JULY, 2019 KV $ &*01 21!* / COPY TO: 1 . '# / APPELLANT 3. ( 3* () / CIT(A) 5. 16 &*7 / DR 2. &' '# / RESPONDENT 4. ( 3* / CIT 6. 8 9) / GF