S. Tejraj Ranka, V. ACIT,

ITA 82/BANG/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 95182 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-08-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 18-08-2015
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 17-01-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUNIL KUMAR AGARWALA JT
• Assessee Lawyers: G S PRASHANTH
• Keywords: Capital asset
• Section: 54F

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.82/BANG/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 SHRI S. TEJRAJ RANKA, NO.22, S.T. BED, NEW EXTN., 1 ST A MAIN ROAD, 4 TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE 560 034. PAN: ADFPR 8399P VS. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7(1), BANGALORE. APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI G.S. PRASHANTH, C.A. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SUNIL KUMAR AGARWALA, JT. CIT(DR) DATE OF HEARING : 18.08.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 26.08.2015 O R D E R PER N.V. VASUDEVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30.10.2013 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), LTU AT BANGALORE RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. ITA NO.82/BANG/2014 PAGE 2 OF 11 2. THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL. HE DERIVES INCOM E FROM SALARY, INCOME FROM PARTNERSHIP BUSINESS FROM TWO FIRMS, CA LLED M/S TYRE GALLERY AND M/S CAR GALLERY, WHICH IS EXEMPT U/S 10(2A) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 [THE ACT] AND INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. R ETURN FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 WAS FILED ON 30/11/2007 DECLARING A TO TAL INCOME OF RS.17,17,194. THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WA S ASSESSED BY THE AO AT RS.28,47,194 AS AGAINST DECLARED INCOME OF RS.17 ,17,194. THE ONLY ISSUE THAT ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IN THIS APPEAL IS REGARDING CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 54F OF THE ACT A T RS.34,34,640 WHICH WAS RESTRICTED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES TO RS.23 , 04,640. 3. DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO ASST. YEAR 2007-08, THE ASSESSEE SOLD IMMOVABLE PROPERTY BEING VACANT SITE IN HSR LAYOUT, BANGALORE FOR A TOTAL SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.36 L AKHS. THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN (LTCG) ON SUCH TRANSFER WAS RS.34,34,3 60. IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT THE LTCG WA S EXEMPT U/S 54F OF THE ACT AS THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED A FLAT, BEING FLAT NO.C 503, BLOCK- C IN A PROJECT KNOWN AS ESPERANZA BY UKN PHASE I IN VARTHUR HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE PROPERTY]. 4. IN THE COURSE OF ASST. PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSE E PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO THREE DOCUMENTS RELATING TO PURCHASE OF PROP ERTY FOR AVAILING EXEMPTION U/S 54F OF THE ACT VIZ., ITA NO.82/BANG/2014 PAGE 3 OF 11 (I) AGREEMENT FOR SALE DATED 17/5/2007 UNDER WHICH UNDIVIDED SHARE OF LAND AND FLAT WITH A BUILT UP AREA OF 20 25 SQ.FT. TOGETHER WITH ONE COVERED CAR PARK WAS AGREED TO B E PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR A SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.46,55,000. (II) LETTER FROM THE DEVELOPER, ESPERANZA BY UKN D ATED 18.6.2008 WHEREIN BASIC COST, CAR PARK 2 NUMBERS, UPGRADATION COST. ADDITIONAL FEATURES AND OTHER INF RASTRUCTURE TO THE FLAT, INCIDENTAL CHARGES ETC. WAS AGREED TO BE SOLD AT A PRICE OF RS.52,60,292. THE BREAKUP OF THE ABOVE AM OUNT WAS GIVEN AS FOLLOWS:- A. BASIC COST FOR 2025 SQ. FT. RS.22,05,000 B. CAR PARK RS. 3,00,000 C. UPGRADATION COST, ADDITIONAL FEATURES & OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE TO THE FLAT RS.22,98,000 D. INCIDENTAL CHARGES:- ELECTRICITY DEPOSIT : RS.1,62,000 WATER & STP DEPOSIT : RS. 30,375 CLUB HOUSE MEMBERSHIP: RS. 75,000 SINKING FUND TOWARDS MAINTENANCE : RS.1,51,875 SERVICE TAX ON DEPOSIT : RS. 28,042 LEGAL FEES : RS. 10,000 ----------------- RS.4,57,292 ---------------- GRAND TOTAL RS.52,60,292 ---------------- (C) REGISTERED SALE DEED BY THE DEVELOPER, ESPERAN ZA BY UKN DATED 25/6/2008 WHEREIN UNDIVIDED SHARE OF LAND, RESIDENTIAL APARTMENT AND 2 COVERED CAR PARKS PROPO RTIONATE SHARE IN COMMON AREA WAS SOLD FOR A SALE CONSIDERAT ION OF RS.22,05,000/-. ITA NO.82/BANG/2014 PAGE 4 OF 11 5. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE V ALUE SHOWN IN THE REGISTERED SALE DEED CAN BE CONSIDERED AS INVESTMEN T IN A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE FOR ALLOWING EXEMPTION U/S 54F OF THE ACT. T HE VALUE AS PER REGISTERED SALE DEED WAS RS.22,05,000. THE AO ALLO WED REGISTRATION CHARGES AND STAMP DUTY AND THUS ARRIVED AT A TOTAL INVESTMENT IN RESIDENTIAL HOUSE OF RS.24,15,595. THE PROPORTIO NATE DEDUCTION U/S 54FOF THE ACT WAS COMPUTED BY THE AO AS FOLLOWS: 34,34,640 X 24,15,595 ----------------------------- = RS.23,04,640 36,00,000 6. THE AO ACCORDINGLY COMPUTED LTCG AS FOLLOWS:- LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS : SALE VALUE : 36,00,000 LESS: COST : 1,65,360 ------------- CAPITAL GAINS 34,34,640 LESS : 54F : 23,04,640 ------------- LTCG CHARGEABLE : 11,30,000 ------------- 7. THE AO WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE INVESTMENT OF RS .52,50,292 CONTAINED IN THE LETTER OF EXPERANZA BY UKN, THE DE VELOPER, WAS INCLUSIVE OF BASIC COST OF THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE, C OST OF OTHER ITEMS LIKE UPGRADATION COST, ADDITIONAL FEATURES, CLUB HOUSE M EMBERSHIP, SINKING FUND TOWARDS MAINTENANCE, ELECTRICITY DEPOSIT, ETC. ACC ORDING TO THE AO, THE INVESTMENTS OTHER THAN UNDIVIDED SHARE OF LAND; RES IDENTIAL APARTMENT, 2 ITA NO.82/BANG/2014 PAGE 5 OF 11 COVERED CAR PARKS AND PROPORTIONATE COMMON AREA; AL ONE COULD BE CONSIDERED AS INVESTMENT IN RESIDENTIAL HOUSE AND INVESTMENT IN OTHER AMENITIES COULD NOT BE REGARDED AS INVESTMENT IN R ESIDENTIAL HOUSE SO AS TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 54F OF THE ACT. 8. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE AO, THE ASSESSEE P REFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS). BEFORE CIT(A), THE ASSESS EE POINTED OUT THAT THE TOTAL INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY WAS A SUM OF RS.52,60,292 AND STAMP DUTY AND REGISTRATION FEE OF RS.2,10,595; IN ALL A SUM OF RS.54,70,887. THE ENTIRE PAYMENT TO THE BUILDER AN D INCURRING OF STAMP DUTY WERE THROUGH CHEQUES AND THE DETAILS OF THE CH EQUE PAYMENTS ARE GIVEN IN THE FORM OF A STATEMENT WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGE-11 OF THE ASSESSEES PAPER BOOK. THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT B EFORE THE CIT(A) THAT IT WAS A COMMON PRACTICE IN REAL ESTATE SECTOR THAT THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE DEVELOPER AND THE PURCHASER OF FLAT CONTAINS, B ESIDES THE BASIC COST OF UNDIVIDED SHARE OF LAND AND VALUE OF APARTMENT, CAR PARK AND UNDIVIDED INTEREST IN OTHER COMMON AREAS, AS THESE ARE REGARD ED AS IMMOVABLE PROPERTY WHICH CAN BE CONVEYED ONLY THROUGH A REGIS TERED DOCUMENT. THE OTHER AMENITIES WHICH MAKE THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE CO MPLETE IN ALL RESPECTS, HAVE TO BE INCURRED BY THE PURCHASER OF FLAT. THES E AMENITIES NEED NOT BE INCLUDED IN THE REGISTERED DOCUMENT. THE VALUE OF THESE AMENITIES IF INCLUDED IN THE SALE DEED WOULD INVOLVE PAYMENT OF STAMP DUTY AND REGISTRATION CHARGES ON THEIR VALUE. THESE AMENITI ES NEED NOT BE LEGALLY TREATED AS PART OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY. THERE IS, T HEREFORE, NO ILLEGALITY ON ITA NO.82/BANG/2014 PAGE 6 OF 11 THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE IN MAKING THE CLAIM FOR DE DUCTION U/S.54F OF THE ACT AS WAS MADE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY TH E ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE ALSO POINTED OUT THAT THE DEVELOPER CONFIR MED THE RECEIPT OF RS.52,60,292 TOWARDS THE COST OF UNDIVIDED SHARE OF LAND, CONSTRUCTED APARTMENT, CAR PARKS AND OTHER AMENITIES. THEREFOR E THERE WAS NO REASON FOR THE AO TO HAVE RESTRICTED THE DEDUCTION U/S.54F OF THE ACT ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF VALUE AS DISCLOSED IN THE REGISTERED SALE DEED. 9. THE CIT(APPEALS), HOWEVER, DID NOT AGREE WITH TH E SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. SHE WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSE E WAS INDULGING IN UNDERVALUATION OF PROPERTY TO AVOID STAMP DUTY AND REGISTRATION CHARGES ON REGISTRATION OF THE PROPERTY AT THE CORRECT VALUE. THEREAFTER, THE CIT(A) FOUND THAT UNDER THE AGREEMENT DATED 17.5.2007, THE DEVELOPER AGREED TO SELL UNDIVIDED SHARE OF LAND, RESIDENTIAL FLAT FOR RS. 44,55,000 AND RS.2,00,000 FOR ONE COVERED CAR PARK. THE CIT(A) F OUND THAT UNDER SCHEDULE E TO THIS AGREEMENT, THERE WAS A TIME SCHE DULE FOR PAYMENT BY THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS COST OF THE FLAT, BUT THE SAID SCHEDULE OF PAYMENT WAS NOT KEPT UP BY THE ASSESSEE. THERE WAS NO REFE RENCE TO ANY BASIC COST IN THIS AGREEMENT. NOR WAS THERE ANY REFERENC E TO BASIC COST IN THE REGISTERED SALE DEED. THE CIT(A) WAS, THEREFORE, O F THE VIEW THAT THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE REGISTERED SAL E DEED CONTAINS ONLY BASIC COST OF FLAT IS NOT BORNE OUT OF THE DOCUMENT S BETWEEN THE PARTIES. THE CONFIRMATION OF THE DEVELOPER ONLY REFERS TO B ASIC COST. ACCORDING TO THE CIT(A) THEREFORE, THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PAR TIES WAS NOT ACTED ITA NO.82/BANG/2014 PAGE 7 OF 11 UPON. THAT THERE WAS NO BASIS FOR THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THERE WAS BASIC COST AND UPGRADATION COST AS THE SAID CLA IM IS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY DOCUMENT. ACCORDING TO CIT(A), THE APARTMENT R EPLETE WITH ALL ITS FEATURES EXISTING AS ON 23.6.2008 CONSTITUTED AN IT EM OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY IN TOTALITY, AND IT WAS REGISTERED AS SUCH BEFORE THE SUB-REGISTRAR. THE DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY RECORDED IN THE SAL E DEED THEREFORE, CONSTITUTES, THE PROPERTY OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE. T HE CIT(A) ALSO FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DECLARED THAT THE CONSIDERATI ON MENTIONED IN THE SALE DEED THAT WAS REGISTERED, WAS THE TRUE MARKET VALUE, UNDER THE KARNATAKA STAMP (PREVENTION OF UNDERVALUATION OF IN STRUMENTS) RULE, 1957. THE CIT(A) WAS ALSO OF THE VIEW THAT IT WAS UNETHICAL FOR THE ASSESSEE TO HAVE AVOIDED STAMP DUTY BY UNDERVALUING THE PROPERTY. THE CIT(A) FINALLY CONCLUDED THAT SHE WAS INCLINED TO A CCEPT ONLY THE VALUE AS GIVEN IN THE REGISTERED DOCUMENT. THE CIT(A) ACCOR DINGLY CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE AO. 10. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THE ASSES SEE HAS PREFERRED THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 11. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNED COU NSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WHO REITERATED SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE LEARNED DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). ITA NO.82/BANG/2014 PAGE 8 OF 11 12. WE HAVE GIVEN A CAREFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE RI VAL SUBMISSIONS. THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF SEC.54F OF THE ACT, IN SO FA R AS IT RELEVANT FOR THE PRESENT CASE, READS THUS: SEC.54F: CAPITAL GAIN ON TRANSFER OF CERTAIN CAPI TAL ASSETS NOT TO BE CHARGED IN CASE OF INVESTMENT IN RESIDENTIAL HOU SE. (1) SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECTION (4), W HERE IN THE CASE OF AN ASSESSEE BEING AN INDIVIDUAL OR A HINDU UNDIV IDED FAMILY], THE CAPITAL GAIN ARISES FROM THE TRANSFER OF ANY LO NG-TERM CAPITAL ASSET, NOT BEING A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE (HEREINAFTER I N THIS SECTION REFERRED TO AS THE ORIGINAL ASSET), AND THE ASSESSE E HAS, WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR BEFORE OR TWO YEARS AFTER THE DA TE ON WHICH THE TRANSFER TOOK PLACE PURCHASED, OR HAS WITHIN A PERI OD OF THREE YEARS AFTER THAT DATE CONSTRUCTED, A RESIDENTIAL HO USE IN INDIA] (HEREINAFTER IN THIS SECTION REFERRED TO AS THE NEW ASSET), THE CAPITAL GAIN SHALL BE DEALT WITH IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION, THAT IS TO SAY, (A) IF THE COST OF THE NEW ASSET IS NOT LESS THAN T HE 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 N ET CONSIDERATION IN RESPECT OF THE ORIGINAL ASSET, SO MUCH OF THE CAPIT AL GAIN AS BEARS TO THE WHOLE OF THE CAPITAL GAIN THE SAME PROPORTIO N AS THE COST OF THE NEW ASSET BEARS TO THE NET CONSIDERATION, SHALL NOT BE CHARGED UNDER SECTION 45: .. 13. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE, IN THE PRESENT CASE, IS THAT HE HAS CONSTRUCTED A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE AND IS THEREFORE EN TITLED TO EXEMPTION U/S.54F OF THE ACT. THE TERM RESIDENTIAL HOUSE I S NOT DEFINED IN THE ACT. THEREFORE THE SAID EXPRESSION SHOULD BE UNDERSTOOD IN THE NORMAL SENSE OF A HOUSE, WHICH IS HABITABLE. THERE IS NO DISPUTE T HAT THE ASSESSEE IN FACT ITA NO.82/BANG/2014 PAGE 9 OF 11 PAID A SUM OF RS.52,60,292 TO THE DEVELOPER FOR ACQ UIRING A FLAT WHICH WAS HABITABLE WITH ALL AMENITIES IN PLACE. THE CONFIRM ATION OF THE DEVELOPER/BUILDER IS ON RECORD. IN ADDITION TO THE SAME, THE ASSESSEE ALSO INCURRED STAMP DUTY AND REGISTRATION CHARGES OF RS. 2,10,595. THUS THE ASSESSEE HAS INVESTED A SUM OF RS.54,70,887 IN ACQU IRING A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. THE ASSESSEE SHOULD THEREFORE BE ALLOWED TH E DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/S.54F OF THE ACT, ON A PLAIN READING OF THE PROVI SIONS OF SEC.54F OF THE ACT. 14. THE AGREEMENT DATED 17.5.2007 IS THE FIRST DOCU MENT BETWEEN THE DEVELOPER AND THE ASSESSEE FOR PURCHASE OF THE PROP ERTY. THIS AGREEMENT REFERS TO ONLY UNDIVIDED SHARE OF LAND AND FLAT MEA SURING ABOUT 2025 SQ.FT. TOGETHER WITH ONE COVERED CAR PARK FOR A CONSIDERAT ION OF RS. 44,55,000 + REGISTRATION CHARGES OF RS.2,00,000 AS PER SCHEDULE E TO THIS AGREEMENT. SCHEDULE E REFERS ONLY TO THE COST OF THE BUILT UP AREA OF 2025 SQ.FT. AT RS.2,200 PER SQ.FT. PAR-II OF SCHEDULE-E AND ARTIC LE IV OF THE AGREEMENT GIVES A LIST OF OTHER CHARGES TO BE PAID BY THE ASS ESSEE. 15. THE NEXT DOCUMENT IS THE REGISTERED SALE DEED D ATED 25.6.2008 WHICH IS FOR A SUM OF RS.22,05,000 WHICH IS TOWARDS UNDIVIDED SHARE OF LAND AND FLAT TOGETHER WITH 2 COVERED CAR PARKS. 16. THE THIRD DOCUMENT IS THE LETTER DATED 18.6.200 8 BY THE DEVELOPER WHICH REFERS TO A SUM OF RS.52,60,292 AS THE TOTAL COST OF THE PROPERTY PAID BY THE ASSESSEE. THIS LETTER REFERS TO THE BASIC C OST OF THE PROPERTY AS ITA NO.82/BANG/2014 PAGE 10 OF 11 RS.22,05,000. 2 CAR PARKS HAVE BEEN VALUED AT RS.3 ,00,000. TO THIS EXTENT, THERE APPEARS TO BE A CONTRADICTION BETWEEN THE REGISTERED SALE DEED AND THIS LETTER OF THE BUILDER. THE OTHER CHA RGES MENTIONED IN THIS LETTER, IN OUR VIEW, CANNOT BE REGARDED AS IMMOVABL E PROPERTY TO BE INCLUDED IN THE REGISTERED SALE DEED AS VALUE OF PR OPERTY. THESE ARE ALL PROVIDED BY THE BUILDER IN HIS CAPACITY AS DEVELOPE R AND BUILDING CONTRACTOR FOR THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, IN OUR VIEW, THERE CA N BE NO ADVERSE INFERENCE DRAWN AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. 17. THE FACT REMAINS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PARTED W ITH A SUM OF RS.54,70,887 TO ACQUIRE A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE, IN THE SENSE, A HOUSE WHICH IS HABITABLE. THEREFORE AS FAR AS PROCEEDINGS UNDE R THE ACT ARE CONCERNED, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE DENIED THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCT ION U/S.54F OF THE ACT. THE FACT THAT THERE WAS UNDERVALUATION OF THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY FOR THE PURPOSE OF STAMP DUTY, IS AN ISSUE WHICH IS ALIEN T O THE QUESTION OF ALLOWING DEDUCTION U/S.54F OF THE ACT, WHEN THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD CLEARLY SHOWS INVESTMENT IN CONSTRUCTION OF RESIDENTIAL HOUSE T O THE EXTENT OF RS.54,70,887. 18. THE AO AND THE CIT(A) HAVE IGNORED THE FACT THA T THE ASSESSEE HAS IN FACT MADE INVESTMENT TO THE EXTENT OF RS.54,70,8 87 AND THEREFORE THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/S.54F OF THE ACT OUGHT TO BE AL LOWED. THE FACT THAT THERE WAS DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THE AMOUNT SET OUT IN THE REGISTERED DOCUMENT AND THE AGREEMENT WITH THE BUILDER HAS ALR EADY BEEN NOTICED BY ITA NO.82/BANG/2014 PAGE 11 OF 11 THE STATE REGISTRATION AUTHORITIES AND THE ASSESSEE IS CONTESTING THOSE PROCEEDINGS. THOSE PROCEEDINGS WILL NOT HAVE ANY BEARING WITH REGARD TO THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DEDUCTION U/S.54F OF THE ACT, AS THE FACTUM OF INVESTMENT IN ACQUIRING A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE AND PAY MENT OF RS.54,70,887 HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED AND NOT DISPUTED BY THE REVENU E. 19. WE ARE THEREFORE OF THE VIEW THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DEDUCTION U/S.54F OF THE ACT OUGHT TO BE ALLOWED AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. WE HOLD AND DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. THE APP EAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED. 20. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 26 TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2015. SD/- SD/- ( ABRAHAM P. GEORGE ) ( N.V. VASU DEVAN ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL M EMBER BANGALORE, DATED, THE 26 TH AUGUST, 2015. /D S/ COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, BANGALORE.