Case Law Details
As regards asseessee’s s case is concerned, it is brought to our notice that the said land, which was sold by the assessee, was forming part of the residential house No. 64, Agrasen Vihar (Ram Bagh) , Muzaffarnagar (having a Municipal No. 65, Bagh Kambalwala) and all the property was duly assessed to house-tax and was self- occupied by the occupants viz. the assessee and other family members. U/s 54 of the Act, the legislature has used the expression “being buildings or lands appurtenant thereto and being a residential house”.
Hon’ble Karnataka High Court had examined these expressions while construing the provision of section 54 of the Act in the case of Shri C.N. Anantharaman vs. ACIT in ITA No. 1012/2008 vide its judgment dated 10th October 2014 has held that the deduction u/s 54 of the Act is also available even if the land, which was appurtenant to the residential house, is sold and it is not necessary that the whole of the residential house should be sold because the legislature has used the words “or” which is distinctive in nature.
In the instant case, it is not the case of AO and CIT (Appeals) that the land was not appurtenant to the residential house. The case of the CIT (Appeals) is that the assessee has sold only the land appurtenant to the house and not residential house which, according to the Karnataka High Court, is not a requirement under the law and exemption u/s 54 of the Act is also available to the land which is appurtenant to the house. The front page of the sale deed itself shows that the land was part of residential house No. 64, Agrasen Vihar, Muzaffarnagar. Therefore, the exemption as claimed and allowed by the Assessing Officer should be upheld and the enhancement as made by the CIT (Appeals) is not sustainable in the eyes of law, hence, the same is deleted.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
