D.S. MEENAKSHISUNDARAM, J.M. This appeal arises out of income-tax assessment of Shri K.G. Vyas, appellant herein. assessment year is 1979-80, of which previous year was S.Y. 2034. assessee is assessed in status of individual. During this year, assessee sold his residential flat in building known as "GIRIRAJ" o n Altamount Road for Rs. 2,37,000. He had acquired this flat some 10 years earlier for Rs. 44,250. Out of sale proceeds of this flat, assessee acquired following 4 flats in building known as Dattani Apartment, Kandivli. particulars of four flats purchased by assessee are following: Flat Date Floor Name of Purchaser No. 18- Appellant and his son 25 2nd 1-1979 Shri .Dhairyawan 16- Appellant and his son 35 3rd 2-1979 Shri Ambrish. 8-3- Appellant and his son 15 1st 1979 Shri Suryakant 31- 12 1st Appellant and his wife 3-1979 total amount invested in purchase of these four flats was Rs. 1,77,750. In computing capital gains arising from sale of his residential flat on Altamount Road, appellant claimed deduction of this amount of Rs. 1,77,750 by taking purchase price of all four flats together. It was contended by assessee that "a house property" in s. 54 of IT Act would also include four flats located in same building and that house property may comprise of more than one residential unit. It was further submitted that assessee and his family were living in all these four flats which were in same building and that they should not be considered as four different house properties to deny exemption claimed by assessee under s. 54 of Act. 2 . ITO, however, did not agree with these contentions and allowed deduction in respect of one of flats purchased for Rs. 49,500 under s. 54 of Act as said property was purchased within prescribed time limit. action of ITO was upheld by CIT(A) who held that exemption could not be allowed to assessee with regard to remaining flats since appellant did not reside in said three flats. It is against this order of CIT(A) that appellant has come up in appeal to Tribunal. 3 . Shri V.H. Patil, ld. counsel for assessee, contended that provisions of s. 54 as it stood before amendment by Finance Act of 1982 with effect from 1st April,, 1983 would be applicable to facts of present case, "that said provision of law requires purchase of house property within period of one year after sale of residential house by assessee and that in present case all four flats put together would constitute house property" within meaning of s. 54 of Act. Shri Patil contended that they are no separate houses but parts of single house as they were located in same building, though on different floors. Shri Patil pointed out that Nos. 12 & 25 were located on first floors, while flat Nos. 25 and 32 were located on second and third floors. He further submitted that flat that was sold by assessee on Altamount Road had area of 1200 sq.ft., whereas total area of all flats put together was about 2000 sq.ft. or slightly more. Shri Patil submitted that assessee had to go in for purchase of these four flats for purpose of his own residence considering strength of his family which was living in large flat of 1200 sq.ft. but that since single flat of that size and accommodation was not available, he had to go in for purchase of smaller flats but in same building for purpose of residence of himself and member of his family. learned counsel submitted that there was common kitchen maintained in one of flats only and that he and his children were living together, even though flats were purchased in joint names of appellant and his wife and appellant and one of sons, as case may be. He further submitted that assessee was not liable to any income-tax in later assessment years but that assessee's sons were income-tax assessees. In their assessments, income from this property in respect of flats in joint names of themselves and their father was neither shown, nor assessed. Shri Patil submitted that there was common kitchen and common ration card for assessee's entire family and that, therefore, assessee was entitled to exemption claimed by him in respect of investment made in purchase of these four flats as purchase of house property within meaning of s. 54(1) of Act. Shri Patil next argued that assuming that these flats should be considered as different houses, yet assessee cannot be denied relief claimed by him as, according to him, "a house property" would include house properties also. In support of his submission. Shri Patil relied onCol. H.H. Sir Harinder Singh vs. CIT (1972)83 ITR 416 (SC)and pointed out that in said case allowance in respect of self-occupied property was allowed in respect of two residential houses under first proviso to s.9(2)of old Indian IT Act, 1922, and that this interpretation was accepted by Parliament while enacting s. 23(2)(ii)of IT Act, 1961 by restricting self occupied property allowance to one house only at assessee's option. Shri Patil compared language of s. 5(1)(iv) and s.7(4) of WT Act and s.33(1)(n)of ED Act and pointed out that wherever Parliament intended to restrict allowance to one property, Parliament had taken care to specify same in express terms. ld. counsel argued that there was no such restriction in s.54(1)of Act. In support of this submission, Shri Patil relied on decision of Supreme Court in case of Trustees ofGordhandas Govindram Family Charity Trust vs. CIT 1973 CTR (SC) 103:(1973) 88 ITR 47 (SC)wherein it was held that singular includes plural. He also relied on provisions of s. 13 of General Clauses Act. Finally, Shri Patil relied on decision of Allahabad High Court inShiv Narain Chaudhari vs. CWT 1977 CTR (All)149:(1977)108 ITR 104 (All)and submitted that this case directly supported his contentions for deduction though it was case under s.5(1)(iv)of WT Act. He also relied on decision of Calcutta High Court inB.B. Sarkar vs. CIT (1982) 26 CTR (Cal)13:(1981) 132 ITR 150(Cal).He, therefore, submitted that Departmental authorities erred in denying relief claimed by assessee under s. 54 of Act. 4 . Shri Prem Kumar, ld. Departmental representative, relied on order of CIT(A) and pointed out that intention of assessee in purchasing these four flats in names of himself and his wife and sons clearly established that wanted to divide these properties among members of his family and that this was further established by fact of electricity bills with meter numbers mentioned in Para 5 of order of CIT(A). He submitted that wording of provision of law in section 54 did not admit of interpretations sought to be placed by learned counsel for appellant and Departmental authorities were fully justified in restricting appellant's claim for relief to only in respect of one of flats. He, therefore, argued that there was no merit in assessee's appeal. 5. We have carefully considered rival submissions of parties in light of authorities referred to above. In present case, there is no dispute that assessee is entitled to deduction claimed by him under s. 54(1) of IT Act, 1961 as it stood before its amendment by Finance Act, 1982 with effect from 1st April, 1983. In fact, ITO himself has allowed benefit of s. 54 in respect of sum of Rs. 49,500 invested in purchase of one flat while computing capital gains assessable in hands of appellant as against appellant's claim for deduction of Rs. 1,77,750. Therefore, question narrows down to whether assessee is entitled to deduct balance of Rs. 1,28,250 representing amount invested by him out of sale proceeds of his flat in Giriraj in remaining three flats for purpose of his residence under s.54 of Act in computation of his capital gains, as claimed by him. This will depend upon question whether four flats purchased by assessee in building known as Dettani Apartment can be regarded as " house property purchased for purpose of his own residence by assessee" as specified in s.54(1) of Act. main objection of Department is that these four flats, though in same building, are on different floors and are also self-contained residential units and that intention of assessee is to divide these flats among members of his family. This objection of Revenue overlooks factual position that all four flats have been purchased in name of assessee and also in name of one of his three sons or his wife. As case may be, and that, therefore, assessee is owner of all four flats by these purchases. Department does not dispute that assessee and his family members are living together in all these four flats with common kitchen and common ration card. We are told that two of flats, viz. flat Nos.12 and 15 are contiguous flats being on first floor and that remaining two flats, viz. flat Nos.25 and 35 are on 2nd and 3rd floor respectively of same building. 6. InShiv Narain Chaudhari vs. CWT, Lucknow 1977 CTR(All) 149:(1977) 108 ITR 104(All)the Allahabad High Court had held that several self-contained dwelling units which are contiguous and situate in same compound and within common boundaries and having unity of structure could be regarded as one house for purpose of granting exemption under s. 5(1)(iv) of WT Act, 1957. In said case, High Court granted exemption under s.5(1)(vi)in respect of four different independent residential units, which were connected by common passage in building owned by assessee HUF and bearing Municipal Door Nos. 92, 92A, Darbhanga Castle At page 110 of reports, their Lordships held as follows: "The aforesaid decisions also support view we have taken, namely, that house may consist of more than one self-contained dwelling unit and that if there is unity of structure, mere fact that such self-contained dwelling units are occupied by different persons, will not make that house into several houses". This decision relied on by ld. counsel for appellant fully supports appellant's contentions that all four flats should be regarded as house of appellant and not as separate houses, as held by Departmental authorities. 7. next decision we would like to refer to is decision of Calcutta High Court inB.B. Sarkar vs. CIT, West Bengal-II(1982) 26 CTR (Cal)13 :(1981)132 ITR 150(Cal). In this case, their Lordships of Calcutta High Court had held that expression used in statute should ordinarily be understood in sense in which it is best harmonies with object of statute and which effectuates object of legislature and that it is, therefore, necessary to read s. 54 of IT Act, 1961 in context of subject matter and its setting scheme of capital gains and object of exemption and to ascertain its true import. Their Lordships held that main purpose of s. 54 is to give relief in respect of profit on sale of residential house, that if assessee is entitled to relief on fulfilment of either of two conditions, that is to say, either purchasing house within one year, or constructing house within two years it would be improper to hold that on fulfilment of both conditions he would be disentitled to that relief, that it is fulfilment of two alternative conditions that is contemplated by section 54 and that where both conditions are fulfilled within time stipulated, assessee will be entitled to relief under section. In said case, Department denied relief to assessee under section 54 in respect of amounts spent by him in constructing additional floor on dwelling house which he had purchased after disposing of his old residential house in No.1 Park Lane, Calcutta. This decision also supports contention of appellant's counsel. 8 . In recent decision reported inCIT, Guj. I vs. Kodandas Chanchlomal(1985) 48 CTR (Guj) 346:(1985) 135 ITR 273(Guj),their Lordships of Gujarat High Court have held that house property for purpose of s.54 of IT Act, 1961 has same meaning as concept of house property under ss.22 to 27 which takes into account entire residential unit and does not mean independent and complete house and that it takes into account all residential units, particularly in these days when multistoried flats are becoming order of day. In said case assessee sold residential property valued at Rs. 1,02,000 and earned capital gains of Rs. 79,000. Within two years of sale of property he constructed house for Rs. 96,500 which consisted of ground floor, first and second floor. assessee leased out ground floor and used first and second floors for his personal residence and claimed deduction of Rs. 57,600 under s. 54 of IT Act on ground that part of capital gains in respect of sales of property was used for construction of new residential house property. Accepting assessee's claim. Their Lordships of Gujarat High Court held that substantial portion of new house property was retained by assessee for his personal purposes, and since construction of new building was completed within statutory period of two years, both conditions for grant of exemption were fulfilled and assessee was entitled to pro rata exemption under s. 54 from liability to tax on capital gains to extent of value of portion of property in his occupation. Their Lordships followed decision of Delhi High Court inAddl. CIT vs. Vidya Prakash Talwar (1981)25 CTR (Del)220:(1981)132 ITR 661 (Del)and earlier decision of Gujarat High Court inCIT vs. Natu Hansraj 1976 CTR (Guj) 365:(1976) 105 ITR 40 (Guj). In our view this decision of Gujarat High Court clinches issue in favour of assessee and against revenue. 9 . In present case all four flats have been purchased by assessee in same building for purpose of his own residence and are being used by him for that purpose only. mere fact that assessee had purchased them jointly either in name of his wife or in names of his sons would not materially affect or alter factual position that he is owner of all four flats and that he is also living in them along with members of his family. fact that on future date assessee may divide these properties among members of his family is of no relevance or consequence for purpose of allowing relief to assessee under s. 54 of Act, since assessee has fulfilled conditions laid down under s. 54 of Act, namely that he had purchased house for his own residence by investing sale proceeds of his former residential houses in purchase of these four flats. It can hardly be denied that for strength of assessee's family with ten members, accommodation acquired by assessee in form of four flats i n same building is commensurate to his requirements. We are, therefore, inclined to accept contentions of ld. Counsel for appellant and hold that assessee is entailed to full relief under s. 54 of Act in respect of entire amount of Rs. 1,77,750 as invested by him in purchase of four flats for purpose of his own residence under s. 54(1) of Act. Accordingly we accept contentions of ld. counsel for appellant and direct ITO to allow deduction of balance of Rs. 1,28,250 in computation of capital gains under s. 54(1) of capital gains under s. 54(1) of Act to appellant. 10. In result, appeal is allowed. *** K .G.VYAS v. SEVENTH INCOME TAX OFFICER