Held that the question whether a residential house was constructed or not within the stipulated period is a question of fact. The assessee has not challenged the finding of the fact of the Tribunal on the ground that it is perverse, and rightly so. It is apparent from a plain reading of s. 54 that the allowance is available if the capital gains arising from a sale of residential property is utilised by the assessee for purchasing a residential property or constructing a residential house. It is obvious that the construction of a residential house would entail raising a construction for inhabitation as a residential dwelling unit. The Inspector’s report, which the Tribunal had accepted is a makeshift guardroom made of plywood of 7 feet x 6 feet was found on the site and a similar room of plywood of 16 feet x 12 feet with a toilet attached was found at the said site. Putting together a structure of plywood sheets cannot be construed as constructing a residential house. The Inspector had also reported that there was no electricity or water connection on the land and electricity was used by genset. The first inspection report indicated that the exact location itself of the land was difficult to find as the area was vast and inhabited and comprised of hilly terrain. It is material to note that the structures made of plywood sheets were found to exist on the subject property during the second visit of the Inspector conducted on 7th Dec., 2017. No question of law arises for consideration of this Court given the description of the subject property in question, as noted by the Tribunal in its order. The findings of the Tribunal cannot be assailed as perverse or manifestly erroneous. (AY. 2015-16)