PCIT v. Hema Krishnamurthy (Smt) (2021) 202 DTR 89 / 322 CTR 347 (Karn)(HC)

S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue – Capital gains- Investment in a residential house -More than two houses – Possible view – Revision order was held to be not valid [ S.54F]

Dismissing the appeal of the revenue the Court held that  at the time of sale of property, the assessee owned only one residential property as the usage of the property has to be considered whether the property is a residential property or a commercial property. The Assessing Officer therefore, held that the assessee has fulfilled the conditions laid down in section 54F of the Act and is eligible for deduction. The tribunal in its order dated 31.07.2015 has held that the Assessing Officer had all the information and had made enquiries with regard to claim of exemption under Section 54F of the Act. It was further held that the Assessing Officer was of the view that one of the properties was let out for commercial purposes. Therefore, the assessee was eligible for deduction under Section 54F of the Act was one of the possible views which cannot be termed as unlawful or illegal. Appeal was dismissed .  (AY. 2005 -06 )