Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PANAJI BENCH “SMC” : PANAJI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA
ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2013-14 is directed against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Bangalore-12, Bangalore’s order dated 28.03.2019 passed in case No.10445/CIT(A)-12/Bang/2017-18, in proceedings u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short “the Act”].
Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
It emerges during the course of hearing and from a perusal of CIT(A)'s detailed discussion in paragraphs 27 to 47 that he has declined the assessee’s claim of section 54 deduction regarding three flats as to have been constructed/purchased for re- investment of the corresponding capital gains.
2 ITA.No.160/PAN/2019 Shivkumar Sangappa Saboji, Belgaum. 4. The Learned DR vehemently argued in light of CIT(A)'s detailed discussion that he has rightly followed ITO vs. Sushila Jhaveri [2007] 107 ITD 327 (Mum.) as well as Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai vs. Dilip Kumar & Co. [2018] 9 SCC 1 (SC) (FB) that such deduction claim of multiple flats is not eligible for deduction.
All these Revenue’s arguments hardly deserve to be accepted. This is for the precise reason that the hon’ble Karnataka high court happens to be assessee’s jurisdictional high court which has already settled the issue in many of it’s decisions namely CIT vs., Smt. K.G. Rukminiamma 331 ITR 291 (Kar.) holding the concerned taxpayer as eligible for the impugned deduction. This is further coupled with the fact that we are in assessment year 2013- 14 whereas the legislature has amended sec.54 of the Act by substituting “residential house” to “one residential house” w.e.f. 01.04.2015 carrying prospective effect only. I thus follow hon’ble jurisdictional High Court decision hereinabove to treat the assessee as eligible for claiming impugned sec.54 deduction. Necessary computation shall follow as per law.
This assessee’s appeal is allowed.