IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, CHENNAI BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.2483/Mds/2014 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner of Shri S.C. Sekar, Income Tax, v. No.19, Thambuswamy Road, Company Circle VI(3), Kilpauk, Chennai - 600 010. Chennai - 600 034. PAN : AAEPC 4430 C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri A.V. Sreekanth, JCIT Respondent by : Sh. N. Devanathan, Advocate Date of Hearing : 31.08.2016 Date of Pronouncement : 30.09.2016 ORDER PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal of Revenue is directed against order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-VI, Chennai, dated 26.06.2014 and pertains to assessment year 2010-11. 2. Shri A.V. Sreekanth, Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that only issue arises for consideration is 2 I.T.A. No.2483/Mds/14 disallowance of claim made by assessee under Section 54 of Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). According to Ld. D.R., assessee entered into agreement of sale in respect of his property with one Shri J. Ashok Kumar Lunia and Smt. Prithi Bala. sale consideration was `3,15,00,000/-. transaction of sale resulted in capital gain of `3,11,72,359/-. assessee claimed deduction under Section 54 of Act on ground that same was invested in another property. Assessing Officer, after referring to copy of sale deed dated 09.12.2009, found that what was sold by assessee is only vacant land and not building. Therefore, assessee is not eligible for exemption under Section 54 of Act. Since assessee was owner of more than one house at time of sale of property, assessee has no eligibility for exemption under Section 54 of Act. According to Ld. D.R., alternative claim made by assessee under Section 54F of Act also cannot be considered since assessee was owning more than one residential house at time of sale. Hence, CIT(Appeals) is not justified in allowing claim of assessee. 3 I.T.A. No.2483/Mds/14 3. On contrary, Sh. N. Devanathan, Ld.counsel for assessee, submitted that admittedly assessee entered into agreement for sale of his property at Harrington Road, Chetpet, Chennai, on 02.12.2009. agreed sale consideration was `3,15,00,000/-. capital gain arising on such transaction was `3,11,72,359/-. assessee s claim before Assessing Officer was disallowed under Section 54 of Act on ground that what was sold by assessee is only vacant land, therefore, Assessing Officer found that assessee is not eligible for deduction under Section 54 of Act. Referring to claim of assessee under Section 54F of Act, Assessing Officer rejected claim of assessee on ground that assessee was having more than one residential house at time of sale. Referring to order of CIT(Appeals), Ld.counsel submitted that CIT(Appeals), after considering material available on record, found that what was sold by assessee is land along with permanent structure which was exclusively used for residential purpose. In view of this finding by CIT(Appeals) on facts, according to Ld. counsel, what was sold by assessee is residential building and not vacant site. This specific finding of Commissioner was not challenged by Revenue. 4 I.T.A. No.2483/Mds/14 4. Referring to paper-book, Ld.counsel for assessee submitted that property in question was assessed by Chennai Corporation in respect of building existed. details of property tax assessment show that there was building. Referring to agreement said to be entered into between assessee and purchaser of building, copy of which is available at page 1 of paper-book, Ld.counsel submitted that in Schedule of agreement, it is clearly mentioned that ground and building bearing old No.37, New No.66, Harrington road, Chetpet, Chennai was sold by assessee. copy of property tax assessment in respect of very same door number clearly indicates that there was building. In sale deed executed by assessee, there was no reference about building, but it does not mean that there was no building at all. agreement said to be entered into between parties, which is not in dispute, clearly indicates existence of building. Moreover, property which was in existence was assessed to property tax also. Therefore, according to Ld. counsel, CIT(Appeals) rightly found that assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 54 of Act. 5 I.T.A. No.2483/Mds/14 4. We have considered rival submissions on either side and perused relevant material available on record. It is not in dispute that assessee entered into agreement for sale of property at Harrington Road, Chetpet, Chennai, with shri J. Ashok Kumar Lunia and Smt. Priti Bala, on 16.10.2009. Schedule of agreement, which is available at page 1 of paper-book, clearly shows that what was agreed to be sold by assessee and purchasers are house and land. In copy of sale deed said to be executed on 02.12.2009 within span of two months, there was no reference about existence of building. property tax details said to be downloaded from website of Corporation of Chennai show that assessee has paid property tax in respect of building at Old No.66 New No.125, Harrington Road. 5. In view of reference made about existence of building in agreement between parties and property tax assessment, it cannot be said that what was sold by assessee is only vacant land and not building. Merely because there was no reference in sale deed that cannot be said that assessee has sold only vacant land. In those factual situation, CIT(Appeals), after examining material available on record, 6 I.T.A. No.2483/Mds/14 found that assessee has sold residential house, therefore, eligible for deduction under Section 54 of Act. In view of above factual situation, this Tribunal do not find any reason to interfere with order of lower authority and accordingly same is confirmed. 6. In result, appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced on 30th September, 2016 at Chennai. sd/- sd/- (A. Mohan Alankamony) (N.R.S. Ganesan) Accountant Member Judicial Member Chennai, th Dated, 30 September, 2016. Kri.Copy to: 1.Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT(A)-VI, Chennai-34 4. CIT-VI, Chennai 5. DR 6. GF. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Company Circle-VI(3), Chennai v. S.C. Sekar