Word ‘a’ employed under Section 54 can include plural residential houses
Tilokchand & Sons Vs ITO (Madras High Court)
T.C.(A) No. 771 of 2009
The Court observed as under :
– In our understanding, if the word ‘a’ as employed under Section 54 prior to its amendment and substitution by the words ‘one’ with effect from 01.04.2015 could not include plural units of residential houses, there was no need to amend the said provisions by Finance Act No.2 of 2014 with effect from 01.04.2015 which the Legislature specifically made it clear to operate only prospectively from A.Y.2015-2016.
– Once we can hold that the word ‘a’ employed can include plural residential houses also in Section 54 prior to its amendment such interpretations will not change merely because the purchase of new assets in the form of residential houses is at different addresses which would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case.
– So long as the same Assessee (HUF) purchased one or more residential houses out of the sale consideration for which the capital gain tax liability is in question in its own name, the same Assessee should be held entitled to the benefit of deduction under Section 54 of the Act, subject to the purchase or construction being within the stipulated time limit in respect of the plural number of residential houses also.
– The said provision also envisages an investment in the prescribed securities which to some extent the present Assessee also made and even that was held entitled to deduction from Capital Gains tax liability by the authorities below. If that be so, the Assessee-HUF in the present case, in our opinion, complied with the conditions of Section 54 of the Act in its true letter and spirit and, therefore was entitled to the deduction under Section 54 of the Act for the entire investment in the properties and securities.
Therefore, in our opinion, Judgment rendered by the Karnataka High Court in CIT Vs. D.Ananda Basappa ((2009) 309 ITR 329 (Karn)) & Khoobchand M.Makhija (supra) cited at bar by the learned counsel for the Assessee apply on all fours to the facts of the present case.
The decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court relied upon by the learned counsel for the Revenue, in which the Division Bench of the said Court finding a distinction with D. Ananda Basapaa’s case (supra) on facts, without expressing contrary opinion in detail, held that no Substantial Questions of Law arose, renders little help to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the Revenue.
Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the present Appeal filed by the Assessee deserves to be allowed and the same is accordingly allowed and the questions of law framed above are aswered in favour of the Assessee and as against the Revenue.
No order as to costs.