By K. B. Bhujle, Advocate
fiogf49gjkf0d
The assessee had purchased two adjacent flats which were interconnected and used as one residential house. On the assesee’s claim for exemption u/s.54F of the Income-tax Act, 1961 the Tribunal passed the order as under:
“It has been shown to us that investment was made by the assessee himself from his bank account in respect of both the flats i.e., flat Nos. 301 and 302 at Cozy Dwell Apartments at Bandra, Mumbai. However, this needs verification by the Assessing Officer. Further the fact whether these two apartments are being used as one residential house or not is also to be verified. Accordingly, the order of the CIT(A) is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer to — (1) verify the fact whether investment in flat Nos. 301 and 302 was made by the assessee from his own funds, and (2) whether such flats are adjacent to each other having common passage and are being used as one residential house. After ascertaining these facts the Assessing Officer shall allow the exemption in respect of both the flats if it is found that both the flats are being used as one residential house and the investment was made by the assessee himself.”
The Bombay High Court upheld the decision of the Tribunal and dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue.
Note: The Supreme Court has dismissed the SLP No. 12607 of 2009 filed by the Revenue, by order dated 7-9-2009.
