Case Law Details
Arun Keshavrao Narwade (HUF) Vs ITO (ITAT Pune)
The assessee claimed that he purchased a residential house on 04-10-2004 for a sum of Rs.16,03,820/- and thus claimed exemption in the computation of income filed by him in response to notice u/s. 148. This claim was jettisoned by the AO on the ground that the assessee did not purchase a new residential flat but only an “office premises” and hence, section 54F could not apply. It is apparent from bare reading of section 54F that the exemption becomes available towards capital gain arising from the transfer of any long term capital asset on purchasing or constructing one residential house in India. Thus, it is patent that in order to qualify for exemption u/s.54F, it is necessary that the new asset must be a ‘residential house’. Turning to the facts of the instant case, it is seen that the new asset purchased by the assessee is an ‘office premises’ and not a ‘residential premises’. In that view of the matter, the inescapable conclusion is that the authorities below were justified in repelling the assessee’s contention on this issue.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT PUNE
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the CIT(Appeals)-2, Aurangabad on 16-09-2015 in relation to the assessment year 2005-06.
2. This appeal is time barred by 31 days. The assessee has filed a condonation application with necessary affidavit giving the reasons for the delay. I am satisfied with the same. The delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for disposal on merits.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
