Beena Pillai ORDER
B.R. Baskaran, Member (A)
1. The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 29-11-2019 passed by Ld. CIT(A)-7, Bengaluru and it relates to the assessment year 2015-16. The solitary issue urged in this appeal is whether the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in rejecting the claim for deduction u/s. 54F of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ['the Act' for short].
2. We heard the parties and perused the record. The assessee along with other family members had sold an immovable property located at Bommanahalli, Bangalore on 20-08-2015. The assessee worked out long term capital gain of Rs. 1,50,20,000/- and claimed deduction of entire amount u/s. 54F of the Act. The AO noticed that the assessee had received a building by way of gift on 13.8.2015 and the said building consisted of ground floor, first floor and second floor. The AO also deputed his inspector to physically inspect the property. The Inspector reported that the Ground floor is having a garage and one residential unit; first floor is having two 1BHK flats and second floor is having 2 single (with bath) units. The AO, accordingly, took the view that each of the unit is separate house. Since deduction u/s. 54F of the Act is not permitted, if the assessee is having more than one house property, the AO rejected the claim for deduction u/s. 54F of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) also confirmed the same and took support of decision rendered by Bangalore bench of Tribunal in the case of Ramaiah Harish (ITA No. 789/Bang/2019 dated 04-09-2019).
3. We notice that the decision rendered by the Tribunal in the case of Ramaiah Harish (supra) was an ex-parte order and the same has been recalled by the Tribunal later. Hence the Ld. CIT(A) could not have placed his reliance on the above said decision.
4. The question, whether each floor of a single stand alone building should be considered as separate house was examined by the coordinate bench in the case of Shri Bhatkal Ramarao Prakash vs. ITO (ITA No. 2692/Bang/2018 dated 04-01-2019). The relevant portion of the order in the above said case is extracted below:-
"20. As far as the case of the AO that assessee has purchased two properties under Sale Deed dated 28.06.2014 is concerned, we have perused the schedule of the property that was purchased. Actually this was a single piece of property viz., Site No. 1 owned by Smt. Janaki Iyengar, Smt. Janaki Iyengar constructed a residential house in ground floor in the year 1937 and the first floor in the year 1962-63 with the ground floor of the property re-numbered as No. 37 and the first floor as Door ITA No. 2692/Bang/2018 No. 37/1 of 1st Main Road, N.R. Colony. Janaki Iyengar executed a will on 28.5.1975 wherein she bequeathed to her sister Dr. M. Vaidhei with Door No. 37 which is Schedule-A of the Sale Deed under which the Assessee purchased this property and the first floor bearing door No. 37/1, described in Schedule B in the sale deed under which Assessee purchased the new asset to her nephew P. Ramanuja Chari. Janaki Iyengar died on 6.6.1975 and the legatees under the will sold their respective shares in one property to the Assessee. The entire property constitutes single house but was bifurcated with two door numbers for the ground and first floor with common entrance in the ground floor only to earmark the share of each beneficiaries. The property otherwise constitutes a single property, though they have two different door Nos. In such circum........