IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH SMC-2, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 3272/DEL/2014 (AY. 2009-10) BRIJ BHUSHAN TAYAL, ACIT, CIRCLE 19(1), A-1/2, WAZIRPUR INDUSTRIAL VS. NEW DELHI AREA, NEW DELHI 110 034 (PAN:AADPT8072G) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. & Sh. Ashish Goel, CA Department by : None ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, JM Assessee has filed Appeal against Order dated 28.3.2014 passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) V, New Delhi pertaining to assessment year 2009-10 2. grounds raised by assessee read as under:- 1. On facts and circumstances of case, order passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] is bad both in eye of law and on facts. 2. On facts and circumstances of case, learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming action of AO whereby he has computed capital gain of Rs.8,35,564/- as against 'Nil' computed by assessee. 3. On facts and circumstances of case, learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming action of AO in considering amount of Rs.3,00,000/- only as cost of acquisition for ITA NO.3272/DEL/2014 purpose of indexation as against 3,72,040/- actually incurred and allowable under provisions of Act. 4(I) On facts and circumstances of case, Learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in upholding action of AO in not allowing benefit of Rs.7,30,539/- being amount invested in purchase of property as eligible under Section 54 of Act. (ii) That contention of appellant has been rejected arbitrarily ignoring provisions of Act and interpretation thereof. 5. That appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any of grounds of appeal. 3. brief facts of case are that assessee filed return of income declaring income at Rs. 20,99,070/- on 28.9.2009. case was selected for scrutiny. Notice u/s. 143(2) was issued on 27.8.2010 and was duly served upon assessee. Subsequently notice u/s. 142(1) of I.T. Act. In compliance thereto, Ld. Counsel of assessee and Son of assessee attended assessment proceedings from time to time. Necessary details / information as called for have been filed by assessee which were examined by AO. assessee is engaged in manufacturing and resale of hosiery goods. assessee during year derived income from business, income from house property and income from other sources. During assessee has declared gross profit of Rs. 1,32,13,389/- on total turnover of Rs. 6,47,26,704/- yielding g.p. rate of 20.41% in comparison to immediate preceding year s gp rate of 23.52% on total turnover of Rs. 4,93,62,1785/-. There is decline in gp rate in current year as compared to immediate preceding year. assessee was specifically asked to submit reasons for decline in trading results. assessee that there is increase in turnover from Rs. 4.93 crores to Rs. 6.47 crores as compared to previous year. assessee further submitted that there is constant increase in NP rate. assessee also produced books of accounts and relevant bills and vouchers in support of expenses debited into profit and loss account which have been 2 ITA NO.3272/DEL/2014 test checked. assessee also maintained necessary records of income derived and supporting details thereof were also filed. Thereafter, after perusing details, AO assessed income at Rs. 30,70,880/- u/s. 143(3) of I.T. Act, 1961 on 27.5.2011. 4. Against assessment order dated 27.5.2011, assessee appealed before Ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned order dated 28.3.2014 has partly allowed appeal of assessee. 5. Aggrieved with aforesaid order of Ld. CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before Tribunal. 6. Ld. Counsel of assessee in support of his contention has filed Written Synopsis. For sake of convenience, we are reproducing same as under: 1. This is assesssee's appeal filed against order passed by learned CIT(A) under section 250 of Income Tax Act dated. 28.3.2014. 2. Issue involved in present appeal is regarding computation Long term capital gain of Rs. 8,35,564/- as against Rs. NIL filed by assessee by withdrawing exemption of Rs. 7,30,539/- under section 54 claimed by assessee and reducing cost of indexation by Rs. 72,040/- 3. During year under consideration assessee has filed ROI declaring total income of Rs. 20,99,070/- on 28.9.2009 and same is assesseed uls 143(3) of Income Tax Act at income of Rs. 30,70,881/- 3 ITA NO.3272/DEL/2014 4. During year under consideration assessee has sold property at AG/270, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi for sale consideration of Rs. 18,10,000 which was purchase in financial year 1998-99 for Rs. 3,72,0401-. Assessee has shown if capital gain of Rs. Nil by claiming indexed cost of acquisition of Rs. 6,11,022/- and exemption under section 54 being investment in residential property of Rs. 12,07,539/- against sale consideration of Rs. 18,10,000/-. 5. Assessee has invested amount of Rs. 12,07,539 in two residential properties:- i. Purchase of Residential House in AG-587, Shalimar 8agh with 50% share of his son Rs.4,77,000/- ii. Purchase. of Plot No. 114 in Omaxe Plot in Omaxe City Sonepat-A Residential Plot Rs. 7 30 539/- Rs. 12,07,539/- 6. Total cost of acquisition claimed by assessee is Rs. 3,72,040/- which includes purchase cost of Rs. 3,00,000/-, Rs. 60,000/-- in respect of renovation and brokerage expenses and Rs. 12,040 towards professional charges which were incurred to transfer property in assessee's name. However, out of above Rs. 72,040 was not allowed by AO in absence of documentary evidences and same was confirmed by CIT(A). fact that property purchased by assessee was too old and renovation charges were necessary too make property in use cannot be ignored and brokerage charges are generally incurred to get property as well as to get property in own name. 4 ITA NO.3272/DEL/2014 7. Further. during assessment proceedings Ld. AO issued show cause as to restricting exemption only to extent of amount invested in Residential House i.e., of Rs. 4,77,000/- as section 54 specially mentioned that investment shall be made in residential house and not in residential plot. 8. Assessee placed his reliance on circular No. 667 dated.18.10.1993 issued by CBOT wherein it has been stated that cost of land is integral part of cost of residential house and therefore exemption will be available for purchase of plot also.( Pg. 4 Para 3rd) 9. Further it is brought to notice to AO by assessee that he has sold property of Omaxe Plot No. 114 in FY 2009-10 i.e., before holding period of three years specified u/s 54 and therefore withdrew exemption claimed u/s 54 in AY 2008-09 by paying tax on same in AY 2009-10 during year amount received. (Pg.5 Para 2nd) 10. However, learned AO ignoring impact of above sale in subsequent year disallow exemption claimed u/s 54 by Rs. 7,30,539/- 11. Aggrieved by order of learned AO assessee preferred appeal before Learned CIT(A). 12.Learned CIT(A) has confirmed addition made by AOon different footing and issued show cause notice to assessee to restrict exemption only to extent of one residential house as section 54 contains words 'a residential house'.(Pg.22 Para 1st) 5 ITA NO.3272/DEL/2014 13.ln this context assessee placed his reliance on judgement of jurisdictional Delhi HC in case of CIT Vs Geeta Duggal 357 ITR 153 (2013) which reads as under: "9. There could also be another angle. Section 54/54F uses expression "a residential house". expression used is not "a residential unit". This is new concept introduced by assessing officer into section. Section 54/54F requires assessee to acquire "residential purchased by assessee was too old and renovation charges were necessary too make property in use cannot be ignored and brokerage charges are generally incurred to get property as well as to get property in own name. 7. Further. during assessment proceedings Ld. AD issued show cause as to restricting exemption only to extent of amount invested in Residential House i.e., of Rs. 4,77,000/- as section 54 specially mentioned that investment shall be made in residential house and not in residential plot. 8. Assessee placed his reliance on circular No. 667 dated.18.10.1993 issued by CBDT wherein it has been stated that cost of land is integral part of cost of residential house and therefore exemption will be available for purchase of got also.( Pg. 4 Para 3rd) 9. Further it is brought to notice to AD by assessee that he has sold property of Omaxe Plot No. 114 in FY 2009-10 i.e., before holding period of three years specified uls 54 and therefore withdrew exemption claimed uls 54 in 6 ITA NO.3272/DEL/2014 AY 2008-09 by paying tax on same in AY 2009-10 during year amount received.(pg.5 Para 2nd) 10. However, learned AD ignoring impact of above sale in subsequent year disallow exemption claimed uls 54 by Rs. 7,30,539/- 11. Aggrieved by order of learned AD assessee preferred appeal before Learned CIT(A). 12. Learned CIT(A) has confirmed addition made by AD on different footing and issued show cause notice to assessee to restrict exemption only to extent of one residential house as section 54 contains words 'a residential house' .(Pg.22 Para 1st). 13. ln this context assessee placed his reliance on judgement of jurisdictional Delhi HC in case of CIT vs. Geeta Duggal 357 ITR 153 (2013) which reads as under:- "9. There could also be another angle. Section 54/54F uses expression "a residential house". expression used is not "a residential unit". This is new concept introduced by assessing officer into section. Section 54/54F requires assessee to acquire "residential house" and so long as assessee acquires building, which may be constructed, for sake of convenience, in such manner as to consist of several units which can, if need arises, be conveniently and independently used as independent residence, requirement of Section should be taken to have been satisfied. There is nothing in these sections 7 ITA NO.3272/DEL/2014 which require residential house to be constructed in particular manner. only requirement is that it should be for residential use and not for commercial use. If there is nothing in section which requires that residential house should be built in particular manner, it seems to us that income tax authorities cannot insist upon that requirement. person may construct house according to his plans and requirements. Most of houses are constructed according to needs and requirements and even compulsions. For instance, person may construct residential house in such manner that he may use ground floor for his own residence and let out first floor having independent entry so that his income is augmented. It is quite common to find such arrangements, particularly post-retirement. One may build house consisting of four bedrooms (all in same or different floors) in such manner that independent residential unit consisting of two or three bedrooms may be carved out with independent entrance so that it can be let out. He may even arrange for his children and family to stay there, so that they are nearby, arrangement which can be mutually supportive. He may construct his residence in such -a manner that in case of future need he may be able to dispose of part thereof as independent house. There may be several such considerations for person while constructing residential house. We are therefore, unable to see how or why physical structuring of new residential house, whether it is lateral or vertical, should come in way of 8 ITA NO.3272/DEL/2014 considering building as residential house. We do not think that fact that residential house consists of several independent units can be permitted to act as impediment to allowance of deduction under Section 54/54F. It is neither expressly nor by necessary implication prohibited. For above reasons we are of view that Tribunal took correct view. No substantial question of law arises for our consideration. appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. " 14. However, learned CIT has drawn adverse conclusion that substance of judgement is that expression" residential house" should not be literally taken as single unit or single flat and that deduction should be extended t residential house consisting of several individual units which have been constructed in manner that they have independent entrance but in case of future need they can be used as composite independent house and therefore confirm disallowance made by assessee.{Pg.21 Last para) 15. However, it is pertinent to note that judgement of Gita Duggal (supra) has made it very clear in para 8 of order and 'a' does not mean singular. Judgement of Karnataka HC CIT vs D. Ananda 8asappa (2009) 309 ITR 329 has been followed which reads as under: "8. It is correctness of above view that is questioned by revenue and it is contended that interpretation placed by Tribunal gives rise to 9 ITA NO.3272/DEL/2014 substantial question of law. assessee strongly relies upon judgment of Kamataka High Court (supra) which, it is stated, has become final, special leave petition filed by revenue against said decision having been dismissed by Supreme Court as reported in annual digest of Taxman publication. judgment of Kamataka High Court supports contention of assessee. identical contention raised by revenue before that Court was rejected in following terms: "A plain reading of provision of section 54(1) of Income-tax Act discloses that when individual-assessee or Hindu undivided family- assessee sells residential building or lands appurtenant thereto, he can invest capital gains for purchase of residential building to seek exemption of capital gains tax. Section 13 of General Clauses Act declares that whenever singular is used for word, it is permissible to include plural. contention of Revenue is that phrase "a" residential house would mean one residential house and it does not appear to correct understanding expression "a" residential house should be understood in sense that building should be of residential in nature and "a" should not be understood to indicate singular number. combined reading of sections 54(1) and 54F of Income-tax Act discloses that, non residential 10 ITA NO.3272/DEL/2014 building can be sold, capital gain of which can be invested in residential building to seek exemption of capital gain tax. However, proviso to section 54 of Income-tax Act, lays down that if assessee has already one residential building, he is not entitled to exemption of capital gains tax, when he invests capital gain in purchase of additional residential building." This judgment was followed by same High Court in decision in CIT v. Smt K.G. Rukminiamma [20117 196 Taxman 87/ [20107 8 taxmann.com 121 (Kar.)." 16. above judgement of Delhi He CIT Vs Geeta Duggal (Supra) is affirmed by Supreme court (2015) 228 Taxman 62 (SC) 17. In addition to above, it is pertinent to note that vide Finance Act No. 2 (2014) amendment to section 54 was carried by substituting words 'one residential house' in place of 'a residential house' w.e.f. 1-4-2015. memorandum explaining finance bill reads as under: "CAPITAL GAINS EXEMPTION IN CASE OF INVESTMENT IN RESIDENTIAL HOUSE PROPERTY existing provisions contained in sub-section (1) of section 54, inter alia, provide that where capital gain arises from transfer of long-term capital asset, being 11 ITA NO.3272/DEL/2014 buildings or lands appurtenant thereto, and being residential house, and assessee within period of one year before or two years after date of transfer, purchases, or within period of three years after date of transfer constructs, residential house then amount of capital gains to extent invested in new residential house is not chargeable to tax under section 45 of Act. existing provisions contained in sub-section (1) of section 54F, inter alia, provide that where capital gains arises from transfer of long-term capital asset, not being residential house, and assessee within period of one year before or two years after date of transfer, purchases, or within period of three years after date of transfer constructs, residential house then portion of capital gains in ratio of cost of new asset to net consideration received on transfer is not chargeable to tax. benefit was intended for investment in one residential house within India. Accordingly, it is proposed to amend aforesaid sub-section (1) of section 54 so as to provide that rollover relief under said section is available if investment is made in one residential house situated in India. It is further proposed to amend aforesaid sub- section (1) of section 54F so as to provide that exemption is available if investment is made in one residential house situated in India. 12 ITA NO.3272/DEL/2014 These amendments will take effect from 1 st April, 2015 and will accordingly apply in relation to assessment year 2015-16 and subsequent assessment years. [Clauses 22 & 24]" 18. This fact clearly shows that intention of legislature before 1.4.2015 was not to restrict exemption to one residential property only and therefore investment could be made in multiple residential properties before 1.4.2015. 19.This issue came up before ITAT Mumbai in case of Niles.h Pravin Vora and Vatin P.ravin Vora (Legal Heirs of Late Pravin Laxmidas Vora) Vs ITO 2016 (5) TMI 64 and it has been held that held that exemption u/s 54F will be allowed for purchase of more than one residential unit as amendment to section 54F is effective form 1.4.2015. "6. facts being similar, following same reasoning Assessing Officer is directed to allow claim of assessee with respect to two flats purchased by assessee as discussed above. It is pertinent to mention here that hon'ble Madras High Court, in case of CIT v. Smt. V. R. Karpagam [2015J 373 ITR 127 (Mad), has clearly held that amendment to provision of section 54F is effective from April 1, 2015, which makes it clear that benefit of section 54F will be applicable to one residential house in India. Prior to amendment it was clear that residential house would include multiple residential units. 13 ITA NO.3272/DEL/2014 20. Further as per provisions of section 54 it cannot be denied that new residential House Property purchased / constructed should not be transferred within period of 3 years from date of transfer. If new property is transferred within period of 3 years from date of transfer then benefit granted under section 54 will be withdrawn. ultimate impact of restriction is as follows: (i) restriction will be attracted, if after claiming exemption under section 54, new house is sold before period of 3 years from date of its purchase/completion of construction. (ii) If new house is sold before period of 3 years from date of its purchase/completion of construction, then at time of computation of capital gain arising on transfer of new house, amount of capital gain claimed as exempt under section 54 will be deducted from cost of acquisition of new house. 21. In present case, assessee has sold property in next year in AY 2010-11 and withdrew exemption claimed of Rs. 7,30,538/-in AY 2009-10 and reduced same from cost of acquisition claimed in AY 2010-11. (Please refer PB Pg. 26.) 22. impact of above action of assessee is that assessee has taxed amount of Rs. 7,30,538/- as Long term capital gain and therefore disallowance of exemption in AY 2010-11 will leads to double taxation in hands of assessee. 14 ITA NO.3272/DEL/2014 23. Since issue is squarely covered by judgement of ITAT Mumbai in case of Nilesh Pravin Vora and Yatin Pravin Vora (Supra) and also exemption is withdrawn in subsequent year by assessee himself exemption claimed by assessee cannot be disallowed. 7. In this case, Notice of hearing to both parties was sent, despite same, Ld. DR not appeared to prosecute matter in dispute, nor filed any application for adjournment by Department. Keeping in view facts and circumstances of present case and issue involved in present Appeal, I am of view that no useful purpose would be served to issue notice again and again to Revenue, therefore, I am deciding present appeal exparte qua Revenue, after hearing Ld. Counsel of assessee and perusing records. 8. I have heard Ld. Counsel of assessee and perused relevant records available with me, especially orders passed by revenue authorities alongwith Written Synopsis filed by assessee s counsel as well as case laws cited by him therein, as aforesaid. 8.1 issue involved in present appeal is regarding computation Long Term Capital Gain of Rs. 8,35,564/- as against Rs. NIL filed by assessee by withdrawing exemption of Rs. 7,30,539/- under section 54 claimed by assessee and reducing cost of indexation by Rs. 72,040/- 8.2 I find that during year under consideration assessee has sold property at AG/270, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi for sale consideration of Rs. 18,10,000 which was purchase in financial year 1998-99 for Rs. 3,72,0401-. Assessee has shown if capital gain of Rs. Nil by claiming indexed cost of acquisition of Rs. 6,11,022/- and exemption under section 54 being investment in residential property of Rs. 12,07,539/- against sale 15 ITA NO.3272/DEL/2014 consideration of Rs. 18,10,000/-. Assessee has invested amount of Rs. 12,07,539 in two residential properties:- i. Purchase of Residential House in AG-587, Shalimar 8agh with 50% share of his son Rs.4,77,000/- ii. Purchase. of Plot No. 114 in Omaxe Plot in Omaxe City Sonepat-A Residential Plot Rs. 7 30 539/- Rs. 12,07,539/- 8.3 Total cost of acquisition claimed by assessee is Rs. 3,72,040/- which includes purchase cost of Rs. 3,00,000/-, Rs. 60,000/-- in respect of renovation and brokerage expenses and Rs. 12,040 towards professional charges which were incurred to transfer property in assessee's name. However, out of above Rs. 72,040 was not allowed by AO in absence of documentary evidences and same was confirmed by CIT(A). fact that property purchased by assessee was too old and renovation charges were necessary too make property in use cannot be ignored and brokerage charges are generally incurred to get property as well as to get property in own name. 8.4 Further during assessment proceedings Ld. AO issued show cause as to restricting exemption only to extent of amount invested in Residential House i.e., of Rs. 4,77,000/- as section 54 specially mentioned that investment shall be made in residential house and not in residential plot. 8.5 Assessee placed his reliance on circular No. 667 dated.18.10.1993 issued by CBOT wherein it has been stated that cost of land is integral 16 ITA NO.3272/DEL/2014 part of cost of residential house and therefore exemption will be available for purchase of plot also. 8.6 It was further seen that assessee has sold property of Omaxe Plot No. 114 in FY 2009-10 i.e., before holding period of three years specified u/s 54 and therefore withdrew exemption claimed u/s 54 in AY 2008-09 by paying tax on same in AY 2009-10 during year amount received. 8.7. However, AO ignoring impact of above sale in subsequent year disallow exemption claimed u/s 54 by Rs. 7,30,539/- 8.8 Aggrieved by order of AO assessee preferred appeal before Learned CIT(A). 8.9 Learned CIT(A) has confirmed addition made by AOon different footing and issued show cause notice to assessee to restrict exemption only to extent of one residential house as section 54 contains words 'a residential house'. ln this context, I find that Hon ble High Court of Delhi in case of CIT Vs Geeta Duggal 357 ITR 153 (2013) has dealt with similar situation wherein it has been held as under:- "9. There could also be another angle. Section 54/54F uses expression "a residential house". expression used is not "a residential unit". This is new concept introduced by assessing officer into section. Section 54/54F requires assessee to acquire "residential house" and so long as assessee acquires building, which may be constructed, for sake of convenience, in such manner as to consist of several units which can, if need arises, be conveniently and independently used as independent 17 ITA NO.3272/DEL/2014 residence, requirement of Section should be taken to have been satisfied. There is nothing in these sections which require residential house to be constructed in particular manner. only requirement is that it should be for residential use and not for commercial use. If there is nothing in section which requires that residential house should be built in particular manner, it seems to us that income tax authorities cannot insist upon that requirement. person may construct house according to his plans and requirements. Most of houses are constructed according to needs and requirements and even compulsions. For instance, person may construct residential house in such manner that he may use ground floor for his own residence and let out first floor having independent entry so that his income is augmented. It is quite common to find such arrangements, particularly post-retirement. One may build house consisting of four bedrooms (all in same or different floors) in such manner that independent residential unit consisting of two or three bedrooms may be carved out with independent entrance so that it can be let out. He may even arrange for his children and family to stay there, so that they are nearby, arrangement which can be mutually supportive. He may construct his residence in such -a manner that in case of future need he may be able to dispose of part thereof as independent house. There may be several such considerations for person while constructing residential house. We are therefore, unable to see how or why 18 ITA NO.3272/DEL/2014 physical structuring of new residential house, whether it is lateral or vertical, should come in way of considering building as residential house. We do not think that fact that residential house consists of several independent units can be permitted to act as impediment to allowance of deduction under Section 54/54F. It is neither expressly nor by necessary implication prohibited. For above reasons we are of view that Tribunal took correct view. No substantial question of law arises for our consideration. appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. " 8.10. However, learned CIT has drawn adverse conclusion that substance of judgement is that expression" residential house" should not be literally taken as single unit or single flat and that deduction should be extended t residential house consisting of several individual units which have been constructed in manner that they have independent entrance but in case of future need they can be used as composite independent house and therefore confirm disallowance made by assessee. 8.11. However, it is pertinent to note that judgement of Gita Duggal (supra) has made it very clear in para 8 of order and 'a' does not mean singular. Judgement of Karnataka HC CIT vs D. Ananda 8asappa (2009) 309 ITR 329 has been followed which reads as under: 19 ITA NO.3272/DEL/2014 "8. It is correctness of above view that is questioned by revenue and it is contended that interpretation placed by Tribunal gives rise to substantial question of law. assessee strongly relies upon judgment of Kamataka High Court (supra) which, it is stated, has become final, special leave petition filed by revenue against said decision having been dismissed by Supreme Court as reported in annual digest of Taxman publication. judgment of Kamataka High Court supports contention of assessee. identical contention raised by revenue before that Court was rejected in following terms: "A plain reading of provision of section 54(1) of Income-tax Act discloses that when individual-assessee or Hindu undivided family- assessee sells residential building or lands appurtenant thereto, he can invest capital gains for purchase of residential building to seek exemption of capital gains tax. Section 13 of General Clauses Act declares that whenever singular is used for word, it is permissible to include plural. contention of Revenue is that phrase "a" residential house would mean one residential house and it does not appear to correct understanding expression "a" residential house should be understood in sense that building should be of residential in nature and "a" should not be 20 ITA NO.3272/DEL/2014 understood to indicate singular number. combined reading of sections 54(1) and 54F of Income-tax Act discloses that, non residential building can be sold, capital gain of which can be invested in residential building to seek exemption of capital gain tax. However, proviso to section 54 of Income-tax Act, lays down that if assessee has already one residential building, he is not entitled to exemption of capital gains tax, when he invests capital gain in purchase of additional residential building." This judgment was followed by same High Court in decision in CIT v. Smt K.G. Rukminiamma [20117 196 Taxman 87/ [20107 8 taxmann.com 121 (Kar.)." 8.12 I also find that above judgement of Delhi HC in case of CIT Vs Geeta Duggal (Supra) is affirmed by Supreme court (2015) 228 Taxman 62 (SC). I also find that this issue came up before ITAT Mumbai in case of Niles.h Pravin Vora and Vatin P.ravin Vora (Legal Heirs of Late Pravin Laxmidas Vora) Vs ITO 2016 (5) TMI 64 and it has been held that held that exemption u/s 54F will be allowed for purchase of more than one residential unit as amendment to section 54F is effective form 1.4.2015. "6. facts being similar, following same reasoning Assessing Officer is directed to allow claim of assessee with respect to two flats purchased by assessee as discussed above. It is pertinent to mention 21 ITA NO.3272/DEL/2014 here that hon'ble Madras High Court, in case of CIT v. Smt. V. R. Karpagam [2015J 373 ITR 127 (Mad), has clearly held that amendment to provision of section 54F is effective from April 1, 2015, which makes it clear that benefit of section 54F will be applicable to one residential house in India. Prior to amendment it was clear that residential house would include multiple residential units. 8.13. I note that in present case, assessee has sold property in next year in AY 2010-11 and withdrew exemption claimed of Rs. 7,30,538/-in AY 2009-10 and reduced same from cost of acquisition claimed in AY 2010-11. Therefore, impact of above action of assessee is that assessee has taxed amount of Rs. 7,30,538/- as Long term capital gain and therefore disallowance of exemption in AY 2010-11 will leads to double taxation in hands of assessee. Therefore, this issue is squarely covered by judgement of ITAT Mumbai in case of Nilesh Pravin Vora and Yatin Pravin Vora (Supra) and also exemption is withdrawn in subsequent year by assessee himself exemption claimed by assessee cannot be disallowed. 22 ITA NO.3272/DEL/2014 8.14. In background of aforesaid discussions and respectfully following precedents, as aforesaid, I decide all grounds in favour of assessee and against Revenue. 9. In result, Appeal filed by Assessee stands allowed. Order pronounced in Open Court on 13/10/2016. Sd/- [H.S. SIDHU] JUDICIAL MEMBER Date: 13/10/2016 SRBHATNAGAR Copy forwarded to: - 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY By Order, Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Delhi Benches 23 Brij Bhushan Tayal v. ACIT, Circle-19(1), New Delhi