ITO WARD -2(4), Nagpur V. SHRI SATPAL KHULLAR, Nagpur

ITA 400/NAG/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1620 (ITAT-NAGPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-10-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 20-12-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NARENDRA KANE
• Assessee Lawyers: K S BAHRI
• Keywords: Question of law
• Section: 54F; 54

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO. 400/NAG/2012 & & ITA NO. 48/NAG/2013 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI MUKUL K. SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. I.T. A. NO.400/NAG/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009 10. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, SHRI SATPAL KHULLAR, WARD 2(4) NAGPUR. V/S. NAGPUR. PAN ADCPK 2996C APPELLANT RESPONDENT. I.T. A. NO. 48/NAG/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009 10. SHRI SATPAL KHULLAR, THE INCOME - TAX OFFICER, NAGPUR. V/S. WARD - 2(4), NAGPUR. APPELLANT RESPONDENT. DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI NAREN DRA KANE. ASSESSEE BY : SHRI K.S. BAHRI. DATE OF HEARING : 19 - 10 - 2015. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30 TH OCT., 2015. O R D E R PER SHRI SHAMIN YAHYA, A.M . THESE CROSS APPEALS BY THE REVENUE AND THE ASSESSEE EMANATE OUT OF THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) - I, NAGPUR DATED 22 - 1 - 2012 AND PERTAIN TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10. 2. GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN REVENUES APPEAL . 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE HONBLE CIT(A) ERRED IN ADMITTING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 54 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 EVEN THOUGH THE NEW RESIDENTIAL UNITS WERE COMPLETE 2 ITA NO. 400/NAG/2012 & & ITA NO. 48/NAG/2013 AFTER A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS FROM THE DATE OF SALE OF THE OR IGINAL PROPERTY, AS REQUIRED U/S 54(1) OF THE ACT. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE HONBLE CIT(A) ERRED IN PLACING RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MRS. HILLA J.B. WADIA REPORTED IN 218 ITR 376, WHICH WAS ON DIFFERENT FACTS AND IS NOT SQUARELY APPLICABLE IN THE INSTANT CASE. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE HONBLE CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE TWO INDEPENDENT SELF CONTAINED DUPLEXES BEARING NUMBERS 101 & 1 02, LOCATED ON FIRST FLOOR OF THE BUILDING, CONSTITUTE A SINGLE UNIT ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION U/S 54 OF THE ACT. 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE HONBLE CIT(A) ERRED IN DIRECTING THE AO TO RESTRICT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 54 TO THE COST OF THE AFORESAID UNIT COMPRISING OF TWO DUPLEXES BEARING NUMBERS 101 & 102, LOCATED ON FIRST FLOOR OF THE BUILDING. GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN ASSESSEES APPEAL. 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION U/ S 54 ON THE ENTIRE INVESTMENT OF 7 FLATS AS THE FULL SALE PROCEEDS ARE INVESTED IN HOUSE PROPERTY. 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE DEDUCTION IS ALLOWABLE U/S 54 EVEN IF THE SAID PROCEEDS ARE INVESTED IN MORE THAN ONE HOUSE PROPERTY I N CASE THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH HIS FAMILY RESIDES IN ALL THE HOUSE PROPERTIES AND ALL THE PROPERTIES BELONG TO THE ASSESSEE. 3. THAT CONSIDERING THAT THE NEW HOUSE PROPERTY WILL BE AS MUCH IN SIZE AS THE PROPERTY SOLD/TRANSFERRED AND SHALL ACCOMMODATE THE SA ME FAMILY OF THE SAME ASSESSEE, THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED IS ALLOWABLE. 4. THAT THE ASSESSEE HAVING COMPLIED WITH THE SPIRIT AND PROVISIONS OF THE LAW IS ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION FROM CAPITAL GAINS AS CLAIMED IN THE RETURN. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE AS UNDER : THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A RETURN OF INCOME ON 26 - 02 - 2010 OFFERING INCOME OF RS. 3,92,700/ - . IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE AO HAS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSED HAS SOLD PROPERTY AT 49, KADBI CHOWK, NAGPUR FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.2,21,00,000/ - A ND HAS CLAIMED EXEMPTION OF THE LONG TERM 3 ITA NO. 400/NAG/2012 & & ITA NO. 48/NAG/2013 CAPITAL GAIN OF RS.1,70,65,386/ - STATING THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS.2,21,00,000/ - HAS BEEN INVESTED IN HOUSE PROPERTY AND THAT HE IS THEREFORE ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION U/S 54 OF THE ACT. THE AO AFTER PERUSING THE RELEVANT AGREEMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT AND SALE OF PROPERTY HAS STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION U/S 54 ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS OBTAINED 7 FLATS IN LIEU OF THE SALE OF PROPERTY. THE AO HAS HELD THAT THE CLAIM THAT DEDUCTION U/S 54 IS A VAILABLE IN RESPECT OF ALL THE 7 FLATS IS MISCONCEIVED AS THESE FLATS WERE DISTINCT AND SEVERAL AND INDEPENDENT SELF CONTAINED RESIDENTIAL UNITS. FURTHER NONE OF THE FLATS HAVE BEEN COMPLETED AND WERE FIT FOR OCCUPATION WITHIN A PERIOD OF 3 YEARS FROM THE DATE OF TRANSFER WHICH WAS 07 - 05 - 2008. THE AO HAS POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS HIMSELF STATED THAT BUILDING IS UNDER COMPLETION VIDE LETTER DATED 25 - 07 - 2011. THE AO HAS A L SO RELIED ON THE REPORT OF THE INSPECTOR DATED 21 - 10 - 2011 THAT THE BUILDING IS NOT COMPLETE AND, THEREFORE, BROUGHT TO TAX THE AMOUNT OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS.1,70,65,386/ - . 4. UPON ASSESSEES APPEAL, LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) CONSIDERED THE ISSUE AND HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 54 ON THE REASONING THAT HO NBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MRS. HILLA J.B. WADIA REPORTED IN 216 ITR 376, HAD HELD THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS ACQUIRED A SUBSTANTIAL DOMAIN OVER THE FLAT BY MAKING ALMOST THE ENTIRE PAYMENT , BENEFIT OF SECTION 54 WILL BE AVAILABLE. HO WEVER, LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR INVESTMENT IN ALL THE 7 FLATS ON THE REASONING THAT BOMBAY TRIBUNAL IN 130 ITD 230 IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. CHATURBHUJ VALLABHDAS HAD HELD THAT IF THE INVESTMENT IS MADE IN TWO INDEPEN DENT RESIDENTIAL HOUSES EVEN LOCATED IN THE SAME COMPLEX, THEN EXEMPTION COULD NOT BE ALLOWED FOR THE INVESTMENT MADE IN BOTH THE HOUSES. HENCE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) PROCEEDED TO HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION IN RESPECT OF ONE FLAT OUT OF FLATS BEARING NO. 101 AND 102 WHICH ARE DESIGNED AS DUPLEX FLAT. 4 ITA NO. 400/NAG/2012 & & ITA NO. 48/NAG/2013 5. AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER, REVENUE AND ASSESSEE ARE IN CROSS APPEALS. 6. REVENUES CONTENTION IS THAT SINCE THE CONSTRUCTION OF FLAT WAS NOT COMPLETE WITHIN THE SPECIFIED PERIOD, T HE ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT BE GIVEN EXEMPTION U/S 54. FURTHER MORE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED THAT THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS GRANTED EXEMPTION IN RESPECT OF TWO FLATS HOLDING THEM AS SINGLE UNIT. THE ASSESSEE, ON THE OTHER HAND, HAS PLEADED THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE G RANTED EXEMPTION WITH RESPECT TO ENTIRE INVESTMENT IN 7 FLATS. FOR THIS PROPOSITION THE ASSESSEE HAS RELIED UPON SEVERAL HIGH COURT DECISIONS. 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE COUNSEL AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. WE FIND THAT AS PER THE ADMITTED FACTS OF THE CASE, T HE ASSESSEE HAS TRANSFERRED HIS LAND TO A DEVELOPER IN LIEU OF OBTAINING 7 FLATS IN THE CONSTRUCTED BUILDING. ADMITTEDLY THE CONSIDERATION FOR THE 7 FLATS HAD PASSED/PAID WITHIN THE SPECIFIED PERIOD BUT THERE WAS DELAY IN COMPLETING THE CONSTRUCTION IN A S PECIFIED PERIOD. WE FIND THAT IN SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES, THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MRS. HILLA J.B. WADIA (SUPRA) HAS HELD AS UNDER : WHAT WE HAVE TO SEE IS WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS ACQUIRED A RIGHT TO A SPECIFIC FLAT IN SUCH A BUILDING WHICH IS BEING CONSTRUCTED BY THE SOCIETY AND WHETHER SHE HAS MADE A SUBSTANTIAL INVESTMENT WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED PERIOD WHICH WILL ENTITLE HER TO OBTAIN POSSESSION OF THE FLAT SO CONSTRUCTED AND IN WHICH SHE INTENDS TO RESIDE. THE MATERIAL TEST IN THIS CONNECTION IS DOMAIN OVER THE FLAT AND INVESTMENT IN IT. THE ASSESSEE SATISFIES BOTH THESE CONDITION S. SHE HAS ACQUIRED SUCH A DOMAIN AND HAS INVESTED ALMOST THE ENTIRE REQUISITE AMOUNT IN IT WITHIN A PERIOD OF 2 YEARS PRESCRIBED UNDER S. 54. 8. LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED BEFORE US THE RECENT DECISION OF HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S FIBRE BOARDS (P) LTD. IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5525 - 5526 OF 2005 VIDE ORDER DATED AUGUST 11, 2015. IN THIS CASE THE HONBLE APEX COURT HAS CONCLUDED AS UNDER : WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE AFORESAID CONSTRUCTION OF SECTION 54G WOULD RENDER NUGATOR Y A VITAL PART OF THE SAID SECTION SO FAR AS THE ASSESSEE IS CONCERNED. UNDER SUB - SECTION (1), THE ASSESSEE IS GIVEN A 5 ITA NO. 400/NAG/2012 & & ITA NO. 48/NAG/2013 PERIOD OF THREE YEARS AFTER THE DATE ON WHICH THE TRANSFER TAKES PLACE TO PURCHASE NEW MACHINERY OR PLANT AND ACQUIRE BUILDING OR LAND OR CONSTRUCT BUILDING FOR THE PURPOSE OF HIS BUSINESS IN THE SAID AREA. IF THE HIH COURT IS RIGHT, THE ASSESSEE HAS TON PURCHASE AND/OR ACQUIRE MACHINERY, PLAN T , LAND AND BUILDING WITHIN THE SAME ASSESSMENT YEAR IN WHICH THE TRANSFER TAKES PLACE. FURTHER, TH E HIGH COURT HAS MISSED THE KEY WORDS NOT UTILIZED IN SUB - SECTION (2) WHICH WOULD SHOW THAT IT IS ENOUGH THAT THE CAPITAL GAIN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE SHOULD ONLY BE UTILIZED BY HIM IN ASSESSMENT YEAR IN QUESTION FOR ALL OR ANY OF THE PURPOSES AFORESAID, THAT IS TOWARDS PURCHASE AND ACQUISITION OF PLANT AND MACHINERY, AND LAND AND BUILDING. ADVANCES PAID FOR THE PURPOSE OF PURCHASE AND/OR ACQUISITION OF THE AFORESAID ASSES WOULD CERTAINLY AMOUNT TO UTILIZATION BY THE ASSESSEE OF THE CAPITAL GAINS MADE BY HIM FOR THE PURPOSE OF PURCHASING AND/OR ACQUIRING THE AFORESAID ASSETS. WE FIND THEREFORE THAT ON THIS GROUND ALSO, THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO SUCCEED. 9. WE FIND THAT FROM THE ABOVE CASE LAWS IT IS EVIDENT THAT IF SUBSTANTIAL PAYMENT HAS BEEN MADE, THEN THE FACT THAT THE CONSTRUCTION IS NOT COMPLETE WITHIN THE SPECIFIED PERIOD WOULD NOT ACT AS BAR FOR THE ASSESSEE TO AVAIL EXEMPTION PROVISIONS OF SECTION 54. IN THE PRESENT CASE THE ENTIRE CONSIDERATION HAS BEEN PAID WITHIN THE SPECIFIED PERIOD. HENCE FO LLOWING THE A BOVE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT D ECISION AND ALSO THE HONBLE APEX COURT D ECISION , WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(APPE A LS) THAT THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE DENIED EXEMPTION PROVISIONS ON THE GROUND THAT CONSTRUCTION IS N OT COMPLETE IN THE INVESTED PROPERTY WITHIN THE SPECIFIED TIME. 10. AS REGARDS THE QUANTUM OF EXEMPTION, LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS REFERRED T HE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT THE EXEMPTION SHOULD NOT BE LIMITED TO ONE NUMBER OF FLA T AND THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR THE ENTIRE INVESTMENT MADE IN THE FLATS : 1. CIT VS. SMT. K.G. RUKMINIAMMA 331 ITR 211 (KER.). 2. CIT VS. GITA DUGGAL ITA 1237/2011 DATED 21 - 02 - 2013. 3. CIT VS. V.R. KARPAAGAM 373 ITR 127 (MAD). 4. ITO VS. P.A. SARALA 154 ITD 168 (CHEN.TRIB.). 6 ITA NO. 400/NAG/2012 & & ITA NO. 48/NAG/2013 5. VITTAL KRISHNA CONJEEVARAM VS. ITO (HYD. TRIB.) (2013). 11. FURTHER MORE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BROUGH T TO OUR NOTICE THAT AMENDMENT HAS BEEN MADE IN SECTION 54F BY FINANCE ACT, 2014 FOR LIMITING THE EXEM PTION TO ONLY ONE NUMBER OF FLAT. HOWEVER, LEARNED COUNSEL HAS POINTED OUT THAT HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. V.R. KARPAAG A M 373 ITR 127 HAS HELD THAT POST AMENDMENT WITH EFFECT FROM 01 - 04 - 2015 THE BENEFIT OF SECTION 54F WILL BE APPLICABLE TO ONE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE IN INDIA. PRIOR TO THE SAID AMENDMENT IT WAS CLEAR THAT RESIDENTIAL HOUSE WOULD INCLUDE MULTIPLE FLATS/RESIDENTIAL UNITS. 12 . WE HAVE CAREFU LLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. WE FIND THAT IT IS CLEAR FROM THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE PERUSAL OF THE CASE LAWS REFERRED ABOVE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION U/S 54 FOR T H E ENTIRE INVESTMENT MADE IN THE 7 FLATS OB TAINED ON THE SAME LAND IN LIEU OF SALE OF THE SAID LAND. WE MAY GAINFULLY REFER TO THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT EXPOSITIONS IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. GITA DUGGAL ITA 1237/2011 VIDE ORDER DATED 21 - 02 - 2013. IN THIS CASE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT CONCLUDED AS UNDE R : THERE COULD ALSO BE ANOTHER ANGLE. SECTION 54 / 54F USES THE EXPRESSION 'A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE'. THE EXPRESSION USED IS NOT 'A RESIDENTIAL UNIT'. THIS IS A NEW CONCEPT INTRODUCED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER INTO THE SECTION. SECTION 54 / 54F REQUIRES THE ASSESSEE TO ACQUIRE A 'RESIDENTIAL HOUSE' AND SO LONG AS THE ASSESSEE ACQUIRES A BUILDING, WHICH MAY BE CONSTRUCTED, FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, IN SUCH A MANNER AS TO CONSIST OF SEVERAL UNITS WHICH CAN, IF THE NE ED ARISES, BE CONVENIENTLY AND INDEPENDENTLY USED AS AN INDEPENDENT RESIDENCE, THE REQUIREMENT OF THE SECTION SHOULD BE TAKEN TO HAVE BEEN SATISFIED. THERE IS NOTHING IN THESE SECTIONS WHICH REQUIRE THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE TO BE CONSTRUCTED IN A PARTICULAR M ANNER. THE ONLY REQUIREMENT IS THAT IT SHOULD BE FOR THE RESIDENTIAL USE AND NOT FOR COMMERCIAL USE. IF THERE IS NOTHING IN THE SECTION WHICH REQUIRES THAT THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE SHOULD BE BUILT IN A PARTICULAR MANNER, IT SEEMS TO US THAT THE INCOME TAX AUT HORITIES CANNOT INSIST UPON THAT REQUIREMENT. A PERSON MAY CONSTRUCT A HOUSE ACCORDING TO HIS PLANS AND REQUIREMENTS. MOST OF THE HOUSES ARE CONSTRUCTED ACCORDING TO THE NEEDS AND REQUIREMENTS AND EVEN COMPULSIONS. FOR INSTANCE, A PERSON MAY CONSTRUCT A RE SIDENTIAL 7 ITA NO. 400/NAG/2012 & & ITA NO. 48/NAG/2013 HOUSE IN SUCH A MANNER THAT HE MAY USE THE GROUND FLOOR FOR HIS OWN RESIDENCE AND LET OUT THE FIRST FLOOR HAVING AN INDEPENDENT ENTRY SO THAT HIS INCOME IS AUGMENTED. IT IS QUITE COMMON TO FIND SUCH ARRANGEMENTS, PARTICULARLY POST - RETIREMENT. ONE MAY BUILD A HOUSE CONSISTING OF FOUR BEDROOMS (ALL IN THE SAME OR DIFFERENT FLOORS) IN SUCH A MANNER THAT AN INDEPENDENT RESIDENTIAL UNIT CONSISTING OF TWO OR THREE BEDROOMS MAY BE CARVED OUT WITH AN INDEPENDENT ENTRANCE SO THAT IT CAN BE LET OUT. HE MAY EVEN ARRANGE FOR HIS CHILDREN AND FAMILY TO STAY THERE, SO THAT THEY ARE NEARBY, AN ARRANGEMENT WHICH CAN BE MUTUALLY SUPPORTIVE. HE MAY CONSTRUCT HIS RESIDENCE IN SUCH A MANNER THAT IN CASE OF A FUTURE NEED HE MAY BE ABLE TO DISPOSE OF A PART THEREOF AS A N INDEPENDENT HOUSE. THERE MAY BE SEVERAL SUCH CONSIDERATIONS FOR A PERSON WHILE CONSTRUCTING A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. WE ARE THEREFORE, UNABLE TO SEE HOW OR WHY THE PHYSICAL STRUCTURING OF THE NEW RESIDENTIAL HOUSE, WHETHER IT IS LATERAL OR VERTICAL, SHOULD C OME IN THE WAY OF CONSIDERING THE BUILDING AS A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. WE DO NOT THINK THAT THE FACT THAT THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE CONSISTS OF SEVERAL INDEPENDENT UNITS CAN BE PERMITTED TO ACT AS AN IMPEDIMENT TO THE ALLOWANCE OF THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54 / 54F . IT IS NEITHER EXPRESSLY NOR BY NECESSARY IMPLICATION PROHIBITED. FOR THE ABOVE REASONS WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE TRIBUNAL TOOK THE CORRECT VIEW. NO S UBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW ARISES FOR OUR CONSIDERATION. THE APPEAL IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED WITH NO O RDER AS TO COSTS. THUS FROM THE ABOVE CASE LAW IT IS EVIDENT THAT HONBLE HIGH COURT S HAVE HELD THAT INVESTMENT IN SEVERAL INDEPENDENT FLATS WOULD NOT B E AN IMPEDIMENT TO THE ALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION U/S 54. THIS SITUATION WAS LATER AMENDED BY FINANCE ACT, 2014 WITH EFFECT FROM 01 - 04 - 2015 WHEREBY THE EXEMPTION WAS SPECIFICALLY LIMITED TO ONE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. HOWEVER, THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT THE AMENDMENT WILL OPERATE PROSPECTIVELY. HENCE THE PRESENT ASSESSMENT YEAR WHICH IS ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 WOULD NOT ATTRACT THE PROVISIONS OF ABOVE SAID AMENDMENT. 13 ON THE ANVIL OF AFORESAID DISCUSSION AND CASE LAWS, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO THE ENTIRE INVESTMENT MADE IN THE 7 FLATS OBTAINED IN LIEU OF SALE OF THE SAID LAND. ACCORDINGLY, WE MODIFY THE 8 ITA NO. 400/NAG/2012 & & ITA NO. 48/NAG/2013 ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) AND HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE DESERVE EXEMPTION ON THE ENTIRE INVESTMENT MADE IN ALL THE NEW FLATS. 14 . IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSE D AND THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 30 TH DAY OF OCT., 2015. SD/ - SD/ - (MUKUL K. SHRAWAT) ( SHAMIM YAHYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNT ANT MEMBER. NAGPUR, DATED: 30 TH OCT., 2015. COPY FORWARDED TO : 1. SHRI SATPAL KHULLAR, KAMAL SPECIA, 49, KADBI CHOWK, NAGPUR - 4440 004. RAJ NAGAR, KATOL ROAD, NA GPUR - 440 001. 2. I.T.O., WARD - 2(4), NAGPUR. 3. C.I.T., CONCERNED 4. CIT(APPEALS) - I, NAGPUR. 5. D.R., ITAT, NAGPUR. 6. GUARD FILE TRUE COPY. BY ORDER WAKODE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, NAGPUR