Suchitra Tandon Vs ACIT (ITAT Allahabad)
The land sold without the building will not be considered as ‘residential property’. Hence, the provisions of section 54 of the Act are not applicable, appeal allowed in favour of the Department
Learned Counsel for the assessee, during the course of hearing in Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, submitted that the CIT(A) has wrongly observed that the land sold was adjacent land and not residential only because it was mentioned as ‘open land’ in the sale deed and the land sold without building is not residential property and is not eligible for being considered for rebate u/s 54 of the Act. He submitted that originally the lease was in the name of P. D. Tandon and in the lease it is clearly mentioned that it is a house/residential property with a built in house and bungalow. On the death of P. D. Tandon, the house along with the open land was inherited by Shri Dinesh Cahandra Tandon and subsequently, on death of Shri Dinesh Chandra Tandon, the same was inherited by the assessee Suchitra Tandon.
He submitted that the assessee has sold open land, which was appurtenant to the residential house and the assessee is eligible for exemption u/s 54 of the I. T. Act. He relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of P. K. Lahri vs. CIT [2005] 196 CTR (All) 406, [2005] 275 ITR 17 (All) and on the judgment of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Shri C. N. Anantharam Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (I.T.A. No.1012 of 2008). We have heard the rival parties and have gone through the material placed on record. The facts of case law, relied by learned Counsel for the assessee, in the case of P. K. Lahri (supra), are distinguishable on facts.
