Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. All the grounds raised by the assessee are interrelated and interconnected and relates to challenging the order of PCIT in passing the order u/s 263 of the Act. Therefore, we have decided to adjudicate these grounds through the present consolidated order.

3. We have heard the counsels for both the parties, perused the material placed on record, judgments cited before us and also the orders passed by the revenue authorities. From the records we noticed that assessee had earned long term capital gains by selling unquoted shares and shown Long term Capital gain of Rs. 8 1,39,22,970/- crore and thus claimed deduction of Rs. 39,96,80,216/- u/s 54F of the Act on account of the purchase of flat No. 501 in building known as "Samparpan" at Bandra vide registered agreement on 20.08.2021. It was observed by Ld. PCIT from return of income of the assessee for A.Y 2021-22 that the assessee had purchased six residential flats / house on 23.12.2020 i.e flat Nos. 1402, 1403, 1502, 1503, 1602 & 1603in the residential building k nown as "Apas Valmark" in Bangalore for a purchase consideration of Rs. 20,00,64,750/- and against the same the assessee had also claimed deduction u/s 54F of the Act. The refore reasons recorded by Ld. PCIT for revision of the order of assessment dated 20.03.2024 was that since the assessee had purchased six residential flats in Bangalore before Siddharth Bhaskar Shah, Mumbai.

purchase of residential flats in "Samparna" at Bandra, Mumbai therefore assessee was not eligible for deduction u/s 54F of the Act amounting to Rs. 39,96,80,216/- as assessee had failed to adhere to the conditions laid down in proviso (a)(i) to sub section (1) of Section 54 of the Act which prescribes that assessee could not "own more than one residential house other than the new asset on the date of transfer of the original asset"

4. In this regard the assessee categorically mentioned that with regard to deduction of Rs. 39,96,80,216/- u/s 54F of the Act, the assessee had submitted that he had „single residential unit‟ in Bangalore on 23.12.2020 i.e "Apas Valmark" and had no ownership of any other property in Bangalore. It was further submitted that six flats described by Ld. PCIT at "Apas Valmark" at Bangalore owned by assessee is a „single residential unit‟. It was submitted that on similar facts the case of the assessee for A.Y 2021-22 was revised by order u/s 263 of the Act by Ld. PCIT and the said order was challenged by the assessee consequently, the Coordinate Bench of ITAT in its order dated 29.09.2025 in ITA No. 2169/Mum/2025 in the case of Sidhardha Bhaskar Shah Vs. PCIT under the similar set of facts considered the six flats at "Apas Valmark" at Bangalore has alleged by the Ld. PCIT in the present case and held the same as one residential unit. Therefore the issue of considering six flats as one unit is not res -integra in view of the decision of the Coordinate Bench of ITAT in Siddharth Bhaskar Shah, Mumbai. 
     Delhi HC in PCIT v.                Lata   Goyal      (2025)       174
     taxmann.com 535 (Del),


                                          Siddharth Bhaskar Shah, Mumbai.

Delhi HC in Geeta Duggal (2013) 357 ITR 153(Del) Karnataka HC in Ananda Basappa (2009) 309 ITR 329 (Kar) Madras HC in Gumanmal Jain [2017] 394 ITR 666 (Mad) Delhi HC in Kamla Ajmera (2024) 169 taxmann.com 119

9. Therefore considering the totality of the facts as discussed by us above and also taking into consideration the decision of the coordinate Bench in assessee's own case, wherein the facts owned by the assessee at „ Apar Valmark‟ Bangalore were considered as „one residential unit‟. Hence, in view of the above facts, the invocation of the provisions of Sec. 263 of the Act and orders passed thereafter are not sustainable in the eyes of law and are thus quashed. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee stands allowed.