Late Susan Cherian Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore)
The issue under consideration is whether the capital gain deduction benefit is restricted to only one residential property under section 54F of the Income Tax Act?
In the present case, as per JDA registered on 23/05/2005, assessee received 35% of total built up area, i.e, 35% of apartments constructed along with 35% of car parking and 35% of terrace and garden rights earmarked for private use as against common use in consideration for transferring 65% of undivided interest. Assessee claimed exemption under section 54F on the value of the 35% of constructed area which was denied by Ld. AO and confirmed by Ld. CIT(A). Before us assessee urges that, she is eligible for exemption under section 54F on the 35% of constructed area received in view of the land she had parted with.
ITAT states that, in decisions of Hon’ble Madras High Court, Hon’ble Karnataka High Court has categorically held that amendment to section 54F with regard to ‘a” by Finance (No.2) Act, 2014 w.e.f. 01/04/2015 withdrawing deduction for more than one flat (residential house). Courts have consistently held that post amendment benefit of section 54F will be applicable only to one residential house in India whereas prior to the amendment residential house would include multiple residential house/units. In view of consistent view taken by jurisdictional High Court, as well as other High Courts, we are of the opinion that assessee is entitled to deduction under section 54F of the act in respect of 35% of constructed property received by her. Accordingly, this ground raised by assessee stands allowed.
FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGEMENT
Present appeal has been filed by assessee against order dated 20/09/2018 passed by Ld. CIT(A)-9, Bangalore for assessment year 2006-07 on following grounds of appeal:
1. The order of the authorities below in so far as they are against the appellant are opposed to law, equity,weight, of evidence, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the case.
2. The order of re-assessment is bad in law and void-ab-initio for want of requisite jurisdiction especially, the mandatory, requirements to assume jurisdiction u/s 148 of the Act did not exist and have not been complied with and consequently, the re-assessment made requires to be cancelled.
