THE ITO, WARD - 4(1), Visakhapatnam V. Smt. Lavanya Dhara, D.oNo. 43-07-23, Visakhapatnam

ITA 434/VIZ/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0238 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-10-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 03-12-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: ARUN KUMAR DAS
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Cost of acquisition; Benefit of exemption; Revised return; Reason to believe
• Section: 54B; 54F; 147; 148; 54; 144

Judgement Text

ITA NO.434/VIZAG/2012 LAVANYA DHARA, VISAKHAPATNAM 1 , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM . . . . , ,, , . . . . , , , , % % % % BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER . .. ./ // / I.T.A.NO. 434/VIZAG/2012 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 ) INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -4(1),VISAKHAPATNAM VS. SMT. LAVANYA DHARA, VISAKHAPATNAM [ PAN:ASJPD8077F ] (- - - - / APPELLANT) (./- ./- ./- ./- / RESPONDENT ) - 0 / APPELLANT BY : SHRI M.N.MURTHY NAIK , D R ./- 0 / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI ARUN KUMAR DAS , A R 0 4 / DATE OF HEARING : 30 .09.2015 0 4 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29.10.2015 / O R D E R PER G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX (APPEALS), VISAKHAPA TNAM DATED 26.09.2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. ITA NO.434/VIZAG/2012 LAVANYA DHARA, VISAKHAPATNAM 2 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESS EE IS AN INDIVIDUAL, FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 ON 31.08.2009 DECLARING A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.23,490/-. FROM THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE FROM THE SRO DATA, IT WAS NOT ICED THAT THE ASSESSE ENTERED INTO A JOINT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH M/S NKP BUILDERS ON 5-3-2008. SINCE, THE ASSESSE DID NOT DISCLOSE THE C APITAL GAINS FROM TRANSFER OF PROPERTY, THE AO HAD REASON TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AND HAD IS SUED NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. IN RESPONSE TO NOT ICE U/S 148, THE ASSESSE VIDE HER LETTER DATED 17-03-2010 HAD OBJECT ED THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT. THE ASSESSE STATED THAT SHE HAS GIVEN O NLY RESTRICTIVE RIGHT TO THE BUILDER TO CONSTRUCT FLATS AND HAND OVER HER SHARE WITHIN 24 MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF AGREEMENT. IT IS STATED THA T DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR THE CONSTRUCTION I S YET TO COMPLETE AND THE SAME WOULD BE COMPLETED IN THE YEAR RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12, THEREFORE, NO TRANSFER TOOK PLACE DURING T HE A.Y. 2008-09. THE AO, VIDE LETTER DATED 19-7-2010 INFORMED THE ASSESS E THAT AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(47)(V) OF THE INCOME TAX AC T, 1961 THE YEAR OF CHARGEABILITY OF CAPITAL GAIN IS THE YEAR IN WHICH THE CONTRACT IS EXECUTED, ITA NO.434/VIZAG/2012 LAVANYA DHARA, VISAKHAPATNAM 3 IN YOUR CASE THE DATE OF AGREEMENT FALLS WITHIN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, THEREFORE REQUESTED HER TO FILE THE RETURN OF INCOME. IN RESPONSE TO LETTER, AGAIN SHE FILED A LETTER ALONG WITH A COPY OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND STATED THAT IN HER CASE S ECTION 2(47)(V) IS NOT APPLICABLE FOR THE A.Y. 2008-09. THE AO, DID NO T CONVINCED WITH ASSESSE REPLAY, ISSUED A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE AND ASKE D HER TO FILE OBJECTIONS IF ANY, FOR THE PROPOSED ASSESSMENT ARRI VING AT A LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS. 42,74,994/-. IN RESPONSE TO SHO W CAUSE NOTICE, THE ASSESSE FILED A LETTER SEEKING TIME TILL 5-10-2010 TO FILE HER OBJECTIONS. THE ASSESSE HOWEVER, DID NOT FILE ANY OBJECTIONS. THE AO LEFT WITH NO OPTION, HAS COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 144 R.W.S. 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AND DETERMINED A TAXABLE INCOME OF RS . 42,98,424/-, COMPRISING OF LTCG OF RS. 42,74,994/- AND INCOME FR OM HOUSE PROPERTY OF RS. 23,430/-. 2. THE ASSESSE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE COMMI SSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) AND CHALLENGED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. BEFORE, THE CIT(A) THE ASSESSE CHALLENGED THE VALIDITY OF REASSESSMENT AND CHARGEABILITY OF CAPITAL GAINS. SHE ALSO MADE AN ALTERNATIVE ARGUMEN TS AND CLAIMED EXEMPTION U/S 54F FOR ENTIRE CAPITAL GAINS. DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CIT(A), ASSESSE MADE ELABORA TE WRITTEN ITA NO.434/VIZAG/2012 LAVANYA DHARA, VISAKHAPATNAM 4 ARGUMENTS AND ALSO RELIED ON VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRECE DENTS IN SUPPORT OF HER ARGUMENTS. REGARDING, EXEMPTION U/S 54F IS CONC ERNED SHE HAD ENTERED INTO A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH M/S NKP B UILDERS FOR DEVELOPMENT OF 726 SQ. YARDS OF LAND. AS PER THE SA ID DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, IN LIEU OF HANDING OVER 50% OF LAND, SHE GOT 6250 SFT BUILT UP AREA. THE BUILDER HAS GIVEN ENTIRE FIRST FLOOR O F 3144 SFT AND 50% OF THIRD AND FOURTH FLOOR COMPRISING OF 3106 SFT. THE ASSESSE CONTENDED THAT, SHE HAD CONVERTED THE ENTIRE FIRST FLOOR INTO ONE SINGLE RESIDENTIAL UNIT AND SELF-OCCUPIED FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSE, AS FOR AS THE THIRD AND FOURTH FLOOR SHE MADE IT CLEAR THAT THE RESIDENTIAL UNITS ARE INDIVIDUAL AND SEPARATE UNITS. THEREFORE, SHE CLAIMED THE ENTIRE B UILT UP AREA OF 6250 SFT. AS RE-INVESTED AND CLAIMED EXEMPTION U/S 54F. THE CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE ASSESSE ARGUMENTS AND ALSO RELIED U PON THE SPECIAL BENCH CASE OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF MRS. SUSHILA M JA VERI 292 ITR (AT) 001, DIRECTED THE AO TO CONDUCT AN ENQUIRY AND ALLO W THE EXEMPTION IN RESPECT OF ONE RESIDENTIAL UNIT. IN CASE, THE ASSES SE IS USING THE ENTIRE FIRST FLOOR AREA FOR THE PURPOSE OF HER SELF-OCCUPA TION THEN, AO IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW THE DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF ENTIR E FIRST FLOOR. IN CASE, ON ENQUIRY IT IS FOUND THAT THE AREA IN FIRST FLOOR IS DIVIDED INTO DIFFERENT RESIDENTIAL UNITS THEN DEDUCTION MAY BE ALLOWED TO THE EXTENT OF COST OF ACQUISITION OF ONE RESIDENTIAL UNIT AS PER THE CHOI CE OF ASSESSE. IN SHORT, ITA NO.434/VIZAG/2012 LAVANYA DHARA, VISAKHAPATNAM 5 THE CIT(A) ALLOWED THE EXEMPTION U/S 54F FOR ONE RE SIDENTIAL UNIT. AGGRIEVED BY THE CIT(A) ORDER, THE REVENUE IS IN AP PEAL BEFORE US. 3. THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) WAS NOT CORRECT IN ALLOWING EXEMPTION U/S 54F, AS THE ASSES SE DID NOT MADE ANY CLAIM BEFORE THE AO BY FILING REVISED RETURN OR EVE N SHE DID NOT MAKE ANY CLAIM DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDIN GS. THE DR ARGUED THAT IF NO CLAIM IS MADE BEFORE THE AO IN THE RETUR N OF INCOME THAN, THE ASSESSE LOOSE THE BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION IN VIEW OF T HE HONBLE SUPREME COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF GOETZ (INDIA) LTD 284 ITR 323. THE DR DID NOT OPPOSED THE EXEMPTION ALLOWED BY THE CIT(A) ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE, BUT HE IS ONLY OPPOSED THE BENEFIT OF EXEMPTI ON ALLOWED ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSE DID NOT MADE ANY CLAIM BEFO RE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE AUTHORIZED REPRESEN TATIVE STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE CIT(A) ORDER. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIE S BELOW. THE FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE IS THAT THE ASSESSE HAS ENTERED INTO A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH M/S NKP BUILDERS FOR DEVELOPMENT OF 726 SQ. YARDS OF LAND. AS PER THE SAID DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, IN LIE U OF HANDING OVER 50% OF LAND, SHE GOT 6250 SFT BUILT UP AREA. THE BU ILDER HAS GIVEN ENTIRE ITA NO.434/VIZAG/2012 LAVANYA DHARA, VISAKHAPATNAM 6 FIRST FLOOR OF 3144 SFT AND 50% OF THIRD AND FOURTH FLOOR COMPRISING OF 3106 SFT. THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT SHE HAD CONVE RTED THE ENTIRE FIRST FLOOR INTO ONE SINGLE RESIDENTIAL UNIT AND SELF-OCC UPIED FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSE. ADMITTEDLY, SHE HAD NOT MADE ANY CLAIM BEF ORE THE AO BY FILING REVISED RETURN OR EVEN DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEE DINGS. BUT, SHE HAD RAISED GROUND BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND MADE ALTERNATIV E CLAIM THAT EVEN IF TRANSFER DID TAKE PLACE, THEREBY RESULTING INTO LON G TERM CAPITAL GAINS, THE ASSESSEE HAS RE-INVESTED THE ENTIRE LTCG THEREF ORE, ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION U/S 54F. THE CIT(A) AFTER RELIED UPON ON THE SPECIAL BENCH DECISION OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF MRS. SUSHILA M JAV ERI 292 ITR (AT) 001, ALLOWED THE EXEMPTION U/S 54F FOR SINGLE RESIDENTIA L UNIT. 5. THE DR CONTENTION IS THAT THE ASSESSE DID NOT MA DE ANY CLAIM BEFORE THE AO BY FILING REVISED RETURN OR EVEN DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THEREFORE, SHE CANNOT CLAIM THE BENEFIT AT THE APPELLATE STAGE IN VIEW OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF GOETZ (INDIA) LTD 284 ITR 323. THE DR DID NOT OPPOSED THE EXEMPTION ALLOWED BY THE CIT(A) ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE, BUT HE IS O NLY OPPOSED THE MANNER IN WHICH THE EXEMPTION ALLOWED THOUGH, THE A SSESSEE DID NOT MADE ANY CLAIM BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE DR DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE GOETZ (IN DIA) LTD 284 ITR ITA NO.434/VIZAG/2012 LAVANYA DHARA, VISAKHAPATNAM 7 323. WE HAVE EXAMINED THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT DECI SION MENTIONED (SUPRA) IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CA SE. THEIR LORDSHIP IN THE ABOVE CASE IN PARA 4 OF THE ORDER HAS OBSERVED THAT THE ISSUE IN THIS CASE IS LIMITED TO THE POWER OF THE ASSESSING AUTHO RITY AND DOES NOT IMPINGE ON THE POWER OF THE TRIBUNAL UNDER SECTION 254 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THA T THE CIT(A) BEING APPELLATE AUTHORITY, SHALL HAVE THE POWER TO ENTERT AIN THE CLAIM OF ANY DEDUCTION/EXEMPTIONS BASED ON THE FACTS EXISTS AT T HE TIME OF ASSESSMENT. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THOUGH ASSESSE DID NOT MADE ANY CLAIM BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, SHE HAS MADE A CLAIM BEFORE CIT(A) WITH THE RELEVANT FACTS WHICH ARE EXIST AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT. THE CIT(A) RIGHTLY ALLOWED THE EXEMPTION U/S 54 TO ONE SINGLE RESIDENTIAL UNIT THEREFORE, WE ARE UNABLE TO AGREE WITH THE ISSUE RA ISED BY THE REVENUE. 6. COMING TO THE MERITS OF THE CASE. THE ASSESSE CL AIMED TO HAVE CONVERTED THE ENTIRE FIRST FLOOR INTO ONE SINGLE RE SIDENTIAL UNIT AND SELF- OCCUPIED FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSE. THE CIT(A) RELIE D UPON THE SPECIAL BENCH DECISION OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF MRS. SUSHILA M JAVERI 292 ITR (AT) 001 AND ALLOWED THE EXEMPTION U/S 54F FOR SING LE RESIDENTIAL UNIT ACCORDING TO THE CHOICE OF ASSESSE. THE ITAT WHILE DEALING WITH THE ISSUE, HELD THAT WHERE MORE THAN ONE UNIT IS PURCHA SED WHICH ARE ITA NO.434/VIZAG/2012 LAVANYA DHARA, VISAKHAPATNAM 8 ADJACENT TO EACH OTHER AND ARE CONVERTED INTO ONE H OUSE FOR THE PURPOSE OF RESIDENCE BY HAVING COMMON PASSAGE AND C OMMON KITCHEN, THEN IT WOULD BE A CASE OF INVESTMENT IN ONE RESIDE NTIAL UNIT AND THE ASSESSE WOULD BE ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION ON SUCH CONT IGUOUS UNITS. THE RELEVANT PORTION IS REPRODUCED BELOW. SO, BOTH THE WORDS 'A' AS WELL AS 'ANY' ARE AMBIGU OUS AND, THEREFORE, THE MEANING OF THESE WORDS HAS TO BE SEE N WITH REFERENCE TO THE CONTEXT IN WHICH THESE WORDS ARE U SED. PERUSAL OF SS. 54, 54B, 54D, 54E, 54EA, 54EB AND 54F CLEARLY R EVEALS THAT THE LEGISLATURE HAS USED THE WORDS 'A' AND 'ANY' WI TH REFERENCE TO INVESTMENT OF CAPITAL GAIN/SALE CONSIDERATION IN CE RTAIN ASSET OR ASSETS. THE LEGISLATURE WAS NOT OBLIVIOUS REGARDING THE MEANING OF THESE TWO WORDS. THE WORD 'ANY' HAS BEEN USED BY TH E LEGISLATURE IN SS. 54B, 54D, 54E, 54EA AND 54EB WHILE THE WORD 'A' HAS BEEN USED IN SS. 54 AND 54F. THIS CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE LEGISLATURE INTENDED DIFFERENT MEANINGS TO BE GIVEN TO THESE TW O WORDS. A CLOSE READING OF THESE SECTIONS SHOWS THAT LEGISLAT URE INTENDED TO ALLOW EXEMPTION IN RESPECT OF INVESTMENT IN MORE TH AN ONE ASSET BY USING THE WORD 'ANY'. SEC. 54E ALLOWS EXEMPTION IN RESPECT OF INVESTMENT IN ANY SPECIFIED ASSET. EXPLN. 1 TO S. 5 4E DEFINES THE 'SPECIFIED ASSET'. IT INCLUDES VARIOUS ASSETS IN WH ICH INVESTMENT CAN BE MADE BY THE ASSESSEES WHO ARE ELIGIBLE FOR E XEMPTION UNDER S. 54E. THERE IS NOTHING TO INDICATE THAT INV ESTMENT IS RESTRICTED TO ANY OF THE SPECIFIED ASSETS. HAD THE LEGISLATURE INTENDED TO RESTRICT INVESTMENT IN ANY ONE OF THE S PECIFIED ASSETS, IT WOULD HAVE USED THE WORDS 'IN ANY ONE OF THE SPE CIFIED ASSETS' INSTEAD OF 'IN ANY SPECIFIED ASSET'. THIS CLEARLY S HOWS THAT THE WORD 'ANY' HAS BEEN USED WHERE THE LEGISLATURE INTE NDED INVESTMENT IN MORE THAN ONE ASSET. SIMILARLY, IN S. 54EB, THE LEGISLATURE HAS USED THE WORDS 'IN ANY OF THE ASSET S SPECIFIED BY THE BOARD'. SIMILAR IS THE POSITION IN S. 54EA. SEC . 54B AND S. 54D ALSO USED THE WORD 'ANY OTHER LAND' AND 'ANY OTHER LAND AND BUILDING' RESPECTIVELY. THE EXPRESSION 'ANY OTHER L AND' IS AN EXPRESSION OF WIDEST AMPLITUDE AND, THEREFORE, ITS MEANING CANNOT BE RESTRICTED TO ANY ONE PIECE OF LAND. ON THE OTHE R HAND, THE LEGISLATURE HAS USED THE WORD 'A' IN SS. 54 AND 54F . HAD THE LEGISLATURE INTENDED FOR INVESTMENT IN MORE THAN ON E ASSET, IT COULD HAVE EASILY USED THE WORDS 'IN ANY RESIDENTIA L HOUSE' IN SS. 54 AND 54F INSTEAD OF THE WORDS 'A RESIDENTIAL HOUS E'. SUPERFLUOUS WORDS ARE NOT USED BY THE LEGISLATURE. DIFFERENT WO RDS 'A' AND 'ANY' HAVE BEEN DELIBERATELY USED BY THE LEGISLATUR E TO CONVEY DIFFERENT MEANINGS. THEREFORE, THE LEGISLATURE USED THE WORD 'A' WHERE IT INTENDED INVESTMENT IN ONE RESIDENTIAL HOU SE ONLY AND USED THE WORD 'ANY' WHERE IT INTENDED INVESTMENT IN ONE OR MORE ASSETS. HAVING HELD THAT INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATU RE WAS TO ALLOW EXEMPTION UNDER SS. 54 AND 54F IN RESPECT OF INVEST MENT IN ONE SINGLE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE, IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO DE AL WITH THE OTHER ITA NO.434/VIZAG/2012 LAVANYA DHARA, VISAKHAPATNAM 9 SUBMISSIONS OF THE SENIOR COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SINCE THEY LOSE THEIR SIGNIFICANCE IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FINDING. SO LONG AS THE HOUSE PURCHASED IS ONE EVEN AFTER CONVERSION, THE E XEMPTION WOULD BE AVAILABLE. ON THE OTHER HAND, IF THE INVES TMENT IS MADE IN TWO INDEPENDENT RESIDENTIAL HOUSES, EVEN LOCATED IN THE SAME COMPLEX, THEN, EXEMPTION CANNOT BE ALLOWED FOR INVE STMENT IN BOTH THE HOUSES. HOWEVER, THE CHOICE WOULD BE WITH ASSESSEE TO AVAIL EXEMPTION IN RESPECT OF ANY ONE HOUSE. EXEMPT ION UNDER SS. 54 AND 54F WOULD BE ALLOWABLE IN RESPECT OF ONE RES IDENTIAL HOUSE ONLY. IF THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED MORE THAN ONE R ESIDENTIAL HOUSE, THEN THE CHOICE WOULD BE WITH ASSESSEE TO AV AIL THE EXEMPTION IN RESPECT OF EITHER OF THE HOUSES PROVID ED THE OTHER CONDITIONS ARE FULFILLED. HOWEVER, WHERE MORE THAN ONE UNIT ARE PURCHASED WHICH ARE ADJACENT TO EACH OTHER AND ARE CONVERTED INTO ONE HOUSE FOR THE PURPOSE OF RESIDENCE BY HAVING CO MMON PASSAGE, COMMON KITCHEN, ETC., THEN, IT WOULD BE A CASE OF INVESTMENT IN ONE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE AND CONSEQUENTL Y, THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION. COMING TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, INVESTMENT WAS MADE IN TWO FLATS LOCATED AT DIFFERENT LOCALITIES IN MUMBAI. ACCORDINGLY, THE AS SESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION IN RESPECT OF INVESTMENT IN O NE HOUSE ONLY OF HER CHOICE. THE AO HAS ALREADY ALLOWED EXEMPTION IN RESPECT OF HOUSE WHICH PERMITTED HIGHER DEDUCTION. THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE IS REVERSED AND THE ORDER OF AO IS RESTORED. 7. THE CIT(A) DIRECTED THE AO TO CONDUCT AN ENQUIRY AND ALLOW THE EXEMPTION IN RESPECT OF ONE RESIDENTIAL UNIT. IN CA SE, THE ASSESSE IS USING THE ENTIRE FIRST FLOOR AREA FOR THE PURPOSE O F HER SELF-OCCUPATION THEN, AO IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW THE DEDUCTION IN RESP ECT OF ENTIRE FIRST FLOOR. IN CASE ON ENQUIRY, IT IS FOUND THAT THE AREA IN FI RST FLOOR IS DIVIDED INTO DIFFERENT RESIDENTIAL UNITS THEN, DEDUCTION MAY BE ALLOWED TO THE EXTENT OF COST OF ACQUISITION OF ONE RESIDENTIAL UNIT AS P ER THE CHOICE OF ASSESSE. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE CIT(A) RI GHTLY ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S 54F AND HIS ORDER DOES NOT R EQUIRE ANY INTERFERENCE. HENCE, WE INCLINED TO UPHELD THE ORDE R OF CIT(A) AND REJECT THE REVENUE GROUND. ITA NO.434/VIZAG/2012 LAVANYA DHARA, VISAKHAPATNAM 10 25. IN THE RESULT, THE REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSE D. THE ABOVE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29 TH OCT 15. SD/- SD/- ( (( ( . .. . ) ) ) ) ( (( ( . . . . ) ) ) ) ( (( ( V. DURGA RAO ) )) ) ( (( ( G. MANJUNATHA) / // / JUDICIAL MEMBER / // / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /VISAKHAPATNAM: 7 / DATED : 29.10.2015 VG/SPS 0 . 8 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO :9 1. - / THE APPELLANT THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), VIJAYAWADA 2. ./- / THE RESPONDENT SRI MAGANTI BHASAKARA MURTHY, 27-33-46, GUDAVALLIVARI STREET, GOVERNORPET, VIJAYAWADA. 3. < () / THE CIT(A), VIJAYAWADA 4. ., , / // / DR, ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM 5 . . . . / GUARD FILE / BY ORDER // TRUE COPY // AB ( SR.PRIVATE SECRETARY ) , / // / ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM