Revision Invalid as AO's View on "One Residential House" Was Plausible.

Revision Invalid as AO’s View on “One Residential House” Was Plausible.

Issue

Can a Principal Commissioner (PCIT) invoke revisionary powers under Section 263 to disallow a Section 54F exemption, by holding the AO’s order “erroneous,” when the AO, after a detailed inquiry, had accepted the assessee’s claim that six interconnected flats constituted “one residential house”?

Facts

The assessee sold unquoted shares and invested the sale proceeds in six separate flats.
These six flats were located on three interconnected floors (two on each floor) and were combined to create a single triplex residential unit.
The assessee claimed a capital gains exemption under Section 54F, treating the six flats as “one residential house.”
The Assessing Officer (AO) conducted a detailed inquiry, examined the assessee’s submissions and documentary evidence, and was satisfied. The AO accepted the claim and completed the assessment.
Subsequently, the Principal Commissioner (PCIT) initiated revision proceedings under Section 263.
The PCIT’s contention was that the AO’s order was erroneous because the investment was clearly in multiple flats, not “one residential house,” and the 54F deduction should have been disallowed.

Decision

The High Court (implied) quashed the revisionary order passed by the PCIT.
It held that the AO had taken cognizance of all facts and evidence during the original assessment.
The AO’s conclusion—that the combined triplex unit qualified as “one residential house” for the purpose of Section 54F—was “one of the possible views” on this debatable, factual issue.
Since the AO’s view was a plausible one, the order could not be deemed “erroneous.” The PCIT’s action was merely a “change of opinion,” which is not a valid ground for invoking Section 263.

Key Takeaways

“One Residential House” is a Factual Test: The term “one residential house” under Section 54F is a matter of fact. Multiple adjacent or interconnected flats/units that are combined and used as a single, indivisible residential unit can be treated as “one residential house.”
High Bar for Section 263: A PCIT cannot invoke Section 263 simply because they hold a different opinion than the AO on a debatable issue of fact or law. The AO’s order must be unsustainably erroneous.
AO’s Inquiry is a Shield: A detailed inquiry and a reasoned conclusion by the AO are a strong defense against a Section 263 revision. If the AO has examined the issue, it is no longer a case of “lack of inquiry.”
“Possible View” Doctrine: If the AO’s view is a “possible” and “plausible” one, the order cannot be deemed “erroneous” and prejudicial, thereby invalidating any revisionary action.

IN THE ITAT MUMBAI BENCH ‘B’

Siddharth Bhasker Shah

Principle Commissioner of Income-tax

Amit Shukla, Judicial Member
and Girish Agrawal, Accountant Member

IT Appeal No. 2169 (MUM) of 2025
[Assessment year 2021-22]

SEPTEMBER 29, 2025

Satyaprakash Singh, CA for the Appellant. Satyaprakash R. Singh, CIT DR for the Respondent.

ORDER

Girish Agrawal, Accountant Member.- This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of ld. PCIT, Mumbai-27, vide order No. ITBA/REV/F/REV5/2024-25/1075134828(1), dated 27.03.2025 passed u/s. 263 of the Incometax Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) against the assessment order by Assessment Unit, u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 144B of the Act, dated 27.12.2022 for Assessment Year 2021-22.

2. Grounds taken by assessee are reproduced as under:

The Learned Principal Commissioner of Income-tax has erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that where the A.O. after detailed verification of record and making enquires had framed the assessment, the revision powers conferred on the Principal CIT under section 263 of Act, cannot invoked only based on a change of opinion.

The Principal Commissioner of Income-tax has erred in passing Order u/s.263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 dated 27.03.2025, without appreciating the fact that the order passed by the A.O. is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue.

The Principal Commissioner of Income-tax has erred in passing Order u/s.263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 dated 27.03.2025, and issuing directions that exemption u/s.54F was not admissible without considering that A.O. had considered the investment was in multiple flats that were interconnected with a single access point, common living space and internal stairways qualifying it as a single residential unit, and after application of mind held that the provisions of Section 54F was available to the Assessee and hence the directions of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax were on account of change of opinion.

The Appellant prays that, the Order u/s.263 of the Income-tax Act dated 27.03.2025 passed by Principal Commissioner of Income-tax be annulled, squashed and set aside. 5. The aforesaid Grounds of Appeal are independent, alternative and without prejudice to one another.

2.1. Issues raised by the assessee in the present appeal are in respect of revisionary proceedings initiated u/s. 263 and passing of revisionary order thereunder. Assessee has raised as many as five grounds, all of which relate to challenging the order passed u/s. 263.

3. Brief facts of the case are that assessee filed his return of income on 15.01.2022, reporting total income at Rs 2,41,19,110/-. In his return, assessee had reported long term capital gain on unquoted shares sold by him amounting to Rs 17,78,90,302/- and after deduction of Rs 95,56,600/- allowable u/s. 48, he reported the long term capital gain of Rs 16,83,33,702/- against which claim of deduction u/s. 54F was made. Details of capital assets transferred by the assessee during the year under consideration and long term capital gain earned by him is tabulated below.

Amount in Rs.

Particulars	Quantity Sold	Sale Consideration	Indexed Cost of Acquisition	LTCG
Equity Shares	42,669	7,96,63,023/-	3,21,084/-	7,93,41,939/-
CCPS-II	17,061	7,58,07,824/-	64,11,498/-	6,93,96,326/-
CCPS-III	3,928	1,74,53,455/-	2,36,072/-	1,72,17,383/-
	Total	17,29,24,302/-	69,68,654/-	16,59,55,648/-

3.1. Details of deduction claimed u/s. 54F is tabulated below.

Sr. No.	Date of transfer of original asset	Cost of new residential house	Date of purchase construction of new house / residential house	Amount deposited in capital gains accounts scheme before due date	Amount deduction claimed
1	04-Feb-2021	49,66,000	25-Dec-2020	0	23,78,054
2	11-Nov-2020	7,58,07,824	25-Dec-2020	0	6,93,96,326
3	11-Nov-2020	1,74,53,455	25-Dec-2020	0	1,72,17,383
4	01-Feb-2021	7,96,63,023	25-Dec-2020	0	7,93,41,939
	Total	17,78,90,302		0	16,83,33,702

3.2. In order to enquire into the deduction claimed u/s. 54 F of Rs. 16,83,33,702/-, ld. Assessing Officer issued a show cause notice dated 16.12.2022, which is placed in the paper book from page 1. From the perusal of this show cause notice, it is noted that it runs into 21 pages, whereby ld. Assessing Officer has extensively and elaborately dealt with the facts of the case and the queries raised by him in respect of the capital gain earned by the assessee and investment made thereafter for claiming deduction u/s. 54F. Ld. Assessing Officer observes that from the perusal of the agreement dated 23.12.2020, assessee had purchased six flats bearing numbers 1402,1403,1502,1503,1602 and 1603 for a consideration of Rs 20,00,64,750/- in a residential project named as “APAS VALMARK” in Bengaluru. Details of the flats purchased by the assessee for making claim of deduction u/s. 54 F is tabulated below.

3.3. Details of the investment made by the assessee in each of the flats is also tabulated below.

SL No.	Apartment	Sale Consideration (Rs.)	Corpus Fund (Rs.)	Total (incl. Corpus Fund (Rs.)
1	1402	2,60,80,750.00	1,58,500.00	2,62,39,250.00
2	1502	3,36,88,750.00	1,58,500.00	3,38,47,250.00
3	1602	2,60,80,750.00	1,58,500.00	2,62,39,250.00
4	1403	3,77,35,000.00	1,78,000.00	3,79,13,000.00
5	1503	3,77,35,000.00	1,78,000.00	3,79,13,000.00
6	1603	3,77,35,000.00	1,78,000.00	3,79,13,000.00
	Total	19,90,55,250.00	10,09,500.00	20,00,64,750.00

3.4. From the above details, ld. Assessing Officer observed that assessee had invested in multiple flats in the project “APAS VALMARK” and has claimed investment of Rs 16,83,33,702/- in these six flats as deduction u/s. 54F in his return. According to him, provisions of section 54F do not allow such a claim made by the assessee of making investment in six flats as the intention of giving deduction u/s. 54F to individual and HUF is for buying a residential house. Contrary to this, in the present case, assessee has made investment in multiple flats and not in acquiring one residential house and therefore, he asked the assessee to furnish details of design of the project in the form of photographs or videography so as to understand the entire layout of the project. Through this detailed show-cause notice, assessee was asked to explain the investment made by him and the deduction so claimed since ld. Assessing Officer prima facie was of the view that assessee had bought six flats which defeats the purpose of section 54F which shields an individual/HUF from payment of capital gain in case of investment of proceeds in a residential house.

3.5. Assessee made a detailed and exhaustive written submission, dated 19.12.2022 along with corroborative documentary evidences as called for, to justify his claim of deduction u/s. 54F as well as nature and source of investment made by him in the acquisition of residential house. Assessee explained with corroborative documents that he has purchased one triplex flat by one registered agreement and the design plans of the triplex flat as recorded in the registered agreement were placed on record. Assessee explained that in this triplex flat which comprises of six flats, two on each floor had only one kitchen, one living room and that all the flats are interconnected by common wall and internal staircase. This triplex flat is used as “one residential house” and therefore, assessee has rightfully claimed the deduction u/s. 54F.

3.6. Assessee made another submission before the ld. Assessing Officer, dated 20.12.2022 explaining the nature and source of investments and the details of long-term capital gain earned by him as well as on the proposal of the ld. Assessing Officer for denying the deduction claimed u/s. 54F, reiterating his factual position. Through this submission, assessee placed reliance on several judicial precedents including that of Hon’ble High Court of Madras. Ld. Assessing Officer elaborately dealt with the submissions made by the assessee in the course of assessment proceedings, relevant extracts of which are reproduced in the assessment order.

3.7. Having considered the exhaustive submissions along with judicial precedents relied upon by the assessee, ld. Assessing Officer concluded of considering the proposed variations at nil. In this respect, Para 6 from the order of the ld. Assessing Officer is extracted below which states that in view of the reply submitted by the assessee, it is found to be satisfactory and the variation proposed in the case stands at nil. He thus completed the assessment by accepting the income returned by the assessee at Rs.2,41,19,110/-.

“6. Variation proposed

The reply of the assessee was duly considered along with the facts and judgments placed on record by the assessee In view of the same, the reply of the assessee was found to be satisfactory In light of the above discussion no adverse inference is drawn in this case and hence the variation proposed in this case stands at NIL.”

4. Subsequently, from the perusal of the records, ld. PCIT observed that case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny for verification of deduction claimed u/s. 54F for which adequate enquiries have not been made by the ld. Assessing Officer. He was of the prima facie consideration that the impugned assessment made by the ld. Assessing Officer is erroneous insofar as prejudicial to the interest of Revenue and thus, issued a show-cause notice u/s. 263 on 27.02.2025. Assessee reiterated his detailed and exhaustive submissions which were made in the course of assessment along with corroborative documentary evidences. He submitted that decision of the ld. Assessing Officer was based on a reasoned interpretation of facts and law which does not cause any prejudice to the Revenue. He also explained the nature and source of investment made by him in making the investment for claiming of deduction u/s. 54F.

4.1. After elaborately considering the provisions of section 54F and the judicial precedence, ld. PCIT drew his consideration and held in para 9 of the impugned revisionary order that ld. Assessing Officer should have disallowed the deduction u/s. 54F by treating the six flats as separate dwelling houses in view of the fact that assessee has resorted to colourable device and also not complied with provisions of section 54F. According to him, the sole intention of assessee is to avoid payment of tax by converting six separate dwelling units into one residential house and claim the inflated deduction u/s. 54F. Thus, according to him, ld. Assessing Officer has failed to properly examine the issue which has rendered the assessment order erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. Ld. PCIT thus concluded in para 14 and 15 of the impugned order that the Assessing Officer failed to conduct proper enquiries, investigation and examination and the deduction claimed u/s. 54F is to be disallowed, as assessee has not complied with conditions laid down in the said section, in respect of house property bought by the assessee in “APPAS VALMARK”, Bengaluru by converting multiple flats into one residential house. He thus, set aside the assessment order with the direction to pass a fresh assessment considering the issues raised in the revisionary order, by giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

5. We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record and given our thoughtful consideration to the orders of the authorities below. We have also perused the paper book containing factual documents in72 pages and also the paper book containing judicial precedents. At the outset, we note that ld. Assessing Officer had made detailed enquiry and verification in respect of the reason for which the case was taken up for scrutiny assessment namely, “for verification of deduction claimed by the assessee u/s. 54F”. Assessing officer had issued show-cause notice comprising of 21 pages, covering every aspect of the claim of deduction made by the assessee, for which even the assessee made detailed submission, supported by relevant documentary evidences, all of which are placed on record. Thus, it is not a case of lack of enquiry or inadequate enquiry on the part of the Assessing Officer in arriving at a view, taken while completing the assessment.

6. The moot point before us in respect of the present appeal vis-a-vis revisionary order passed by the ld. PCIT is to adjudicate upon whether the view taken by the Assessing Officer in accepting the claim of deduction u/s. 54F is a plausible view or otherwise. The issue raised by the ld. PCIT in the revisionary order of assessee violating the provisions of section 54F by making investment in multiple flats i.e. six flats, two each on three different floors and converting the same into one triplex residential house, has been enquired into detail by the ld. Assessing Officer in the course of assessment proceeding itself. Replies given by the assessee along with documentary evidences are found to be satisfactory as recorded by the ld. Assessing Officer in Para 6 of his assessment order. On the very same issue, ld. PCIT has another view of assessee being not entitled to claim of deduction u/s. 54F having invested into multiple flats i.e. six flats on three different floors, two on each floor and thus, has held the assessment order to be erroneous insofar as prejudicial to the interest of revenue.

6.1. To understand the factual position, we perused the registered agreement to sell, placed in the paper book at page 36 and onwards,whereby the details of the property sold by the Vendor/Developer to the assessee is detailed in Para J of the said agreement. The said Para is extracted below for ready reference.

“J. WHEREAS the Vendor/Developer herein has agreed to sell to the Purchaser/s the SCHEDULE ‘B’ PROPERTY and SCHEDULE ‘C’ PROPERTY for a valuable consideration and on certain mutually agreed lems and conditions as mentioned hereinafter a proportionale undivided share night title and interest in the Schedule A Property being 696.57 sq.ft, 696.57 sq.ft., 696.57 sq ft, 782.27 sq.ft., 782.27 sq.ft. and 782.27 sq.ft. all aggregating to 4436.52 sq.ft. which is more fully described in the Schedule B hereto and for the sake of brevity is hereinafter collectively called and referred to as the SCHEDULE B’ PROPERTY and a 3 and 4 BHK Apartment forming part of the triplex units bearing Nos. 1402, 1502, 1602, 1403, 1503 and 1603 respectively on the Schedule A property on the Fourteenth, Fifteenth and Sixteenth Floors, individually measuring 3170 sq.ft., 3170 sq.ft., 3170 sq.ft., 3550 sq.ft. 3560 sq.ft. and 3560 sq ft. of Super Built up area, along with 2 (two) covered car parking space reserved for each apartment referred to above which is more fully and particularly described in the Schedule ‘C’ hereto and for the sake of brevity is hereinafter collectively called and referred to as the SCHEDULE ‘C’ APARTMENT in accordance with the sanctioned plan and on the terms, conditions and specifications as mentioned in the SCHEDULE D’ hereunder.”

(emphasis supplied by us by bold and underline)

6.2. From the above Para, it is noted that the scheduled property is a “triplex unit” comprising of the six flats. We also take note of the Schedule C containing description of the apartments agreed to be sold by the developer vide this registered agreement. The same is extracted below.

6.3. From the above, we note that there are six flats, one 3BHK flat and another 4BHK flat on floor 14 and similarly on floor 15 and floor 16 thus, comprising of six flats on three floors, two each with two parking for each flat. The total super built up area covered by the six flats is 20,190 square feet and which forms part of the “one triplex unit”. Assessee also gets proportionate undivided share in the land in respect of the said property comprising of one triplex unit having six flats.

7. The issue of considering multiple flats on different floors of an apartment to be considered as one residential house had come up before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Pr. CIT v. Lata Goyal (Delhi), wherein on similar fact pattern, the claim of deduction u/s. 54F was allowed to the assessee. Facts of this case as noted in Para 4 of the order are that “assessee filed her return of income declaring income of Rs. 70,87,301/-. She claimed a deduction of Rs. 90 crores u/s. 54F asserting that the consideration received from the sale of shares of FITTJEE Limited, an unlisted company, the gains from which would otherwise be chargeable to tax as capital gains, was invested in acquiring a residential house property bearing the address E-27, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi, i.e., the new asset”. In the assessment completed by the ld. Assessing Officer u/s. 147, he noted that assessee owned more than one residential property on the date of the transfer of shares, being basement and second floor of the property. According to him, the basement and second floor were required to be considered as two separate residential houses, and therefore, the provisions of section 54F were not complied with. Revenue was in appeal before the Hon’ble High Court on the relief granted by the Tribunal in allowing the claim of deduction u/s. 54F by treating the different units at different floors as one single residential house.

7.1. Hon’ble Court referred and relied on the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CIT v. D. Ananda Basappa [2009] 309 ITR 329 (Kar), whereby it held that the expression ‘a residential house’ should be understood in a sense that ‘a’ should not be understood to indicate a singular number. Hon’ble Court noted that the two apartments had been joined to make one unit by opening a door between the two apartments and therefore, the same could be construed as one unit. Hon’ble Delhi High Court referred to the decision of its own Coordinate Bench in the case of CIT v. Geeta Duggal [2013] 357 ITR 153 (Del), wherein the issue relating to ‘a residential house’ vis-a-vis ‘a residential unit’ was elaborately dealt with. In para 11 of this order, in the case of Geeta Duggal (supra), Hon’ble Court noted that section 54 and 54F uses the expression ‘a residential house’. What ld. Assessing Officer has referred to is ‘a residential unit’ which is not an expression found in the said sections.

7.2. According to the Hon’ble Court, section 54 and 54F requires the assessee to acquire a residential house and so long as the assessee acquires a building which may be constructed for the sake of convenience in such a manner as to consist of several units, which can, if the need arises, be conveniently and independently used as an independent residence, the requirement of the section should be taken to have been satisfied. Hon’ble Court also noted that there is nothing in these sections which require the residential house to be constructed in a particular manner. The only requirement is that it should be for the residential use and not for commercial use. Thus, if there is nothing in the section which requires that the residential house should be built in a particular manner, the Income-tax authorities cannot insist upon such a requirement. Hon’ble Court further elaborated that a person may construct a house according to his plans and requirements. Hon’ble Court thus, concluded that how or why the physical structuring of the new residential house, whether it is lateral or vertical, should come in the way of considering the building as residential house. According to the Hon’ble Court, the fact that the residential house consist of several independent units, cannot be permitted to act as an impediment to the allowance of the deduction u/s. 54 and 54F.

7.3. Hon’ble Delhi High Court further referred to the decision of another Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of CIT v. Gumanmal Jain ITR 666 (Madras). This decision was also rendered in the context of construing whether the new asset purchased is a residential house, an expression used in section 54 and 54F of the Act. Hon’ble Court noted that this decision would be equally applicable for construing the term ‘one residential house’ as used in clause (i) of the proviso to section 54F. Thus, Hon’ble Court after placing reliance on several decisions of other High Courts, namely Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, Hon’ble High Court of Madras and of its own Coordinate Bench in another case, found no infirmity with the decisions of the Tribunal in holding that the assessee could not be denied the deduction u/s.54F on the ground that she held more than one residential unit. While concluding, Hon’ble Court also took note of the fact that configuration of ownership of the property as recorded in South Delhi Municipal records does not lead to the conclusion that there is any failure on the part of the assessee in disclosing the material facts relevant for claiming the deduction sought by the assessee.

7.4. Relevant paragraphs of this decision from para 20 to para 28 are extracted below for ready reference:-

“20. In CIT v. D. Ananda Basappa ITR 329 (Karnataka), the Karnataka High Court considered the admissibility of exemption under Section 54 of the Act in a case where the Assessee had sold a residential house and purchased two adjacent apartments. The Court held that “the expression ‘a’ residential house should be understood in a sense that building should be of residential in nature and ‘a’ should not be understood to indicate a singular number”. However, in the facts of the said case, the court noted that two apartments had been joined to make one unit by opening a door between the two apartments and therefore, the same could be construed as one unit.

21. In Pawan Arya v. CIT (Punjab & Haryana)/2010 SCC OnLine P&H 12590, the court distinguished the decision in D. Ananda Basappa (supra) and stated that the exemption under Section 54F of the Act would not be applicable where the units are located at two different locations. In the aforesaid context, the court observed as under:-

“4. As regards claim for exemption against acquisition of two houses under Section 54 of the Act, the same is not admissible in plain language of statute. In the judgment of Karnataka High Court in CIT v. D. Ananda Basappa [2009] 309 ITR 329 (Kar), referred to in the impugned order, exemption against purchase of two flats was allowed having regard to the finding that both the flats could be treated to be one house as both had been combined to make one residential unit. The said judgment, thus, proceeds on a different fact situation.”

22. It is also relevant to refer to the decision of the coordinate bench of this court in CIT v. Gita Duggal ITR 153 (Delhi)/2013 SCC OnLine Del 752 where this court has held as under: –

“11. There could also be another angle. Section 54/54F uses the expression “a residential house”. The expression used is not “a residential unit”. This is a new concept introduced by the Assessing Officer into the section. Section 54/54F requires the assessee to acquire a “residential house” and so long as the assessee acquires a building, which may be constructed, for the sake of convenience, in such a manner as to consist of several units which can, if the need arises, be conveniently and independently used as an independent residence, the requirement of the section should be taken to have been satisfied. There is nothing in these sections which require the residential house to be constructed in a particular manner. The only requirement is that it should be for the residential use and not for commercial use. If there is nothing in the section which requires that the residential house should be built in a particular manner, it seems to us that the Income-tax authorities cannot insist upon that requirement. A person may construct a house according to his plans and requirements. Most of the houses are constructed according to the needs and requirements and even compulsions. For instance, a person may construct a residential house in such a manner that he may use the ground floor for his own residence and let out the first floor having an independent entry so that his income is augmented. It is quite common to find such arrangements, particularly postretirement. One may build a house consisting of four bedrooms (all in the same or different floors) in such a manner that an independent residential unit consisting of two or three bedrooms may be carved out with an 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, an arrangement which can be mutually supportive. He may construct his residence in such a manner that in case of a future need he may be able to dispose of a part thereof as an independent house. There may be several such considerations for a person while constructing a residential house. We are therefore, unable to see how or why the physical structuring of the new residential house, whether it is lateral or vertical, should come in the way of considering the building as a residential house. We do not think that the fact that the residential house consists of several independent units can be permitted to act as an impediment to the allowance of the deduction under section 54/54F. It is neither expressly nor by necessary implication prohibited.”

23. This court in Mrs. Kamla Ajmera v. Pr. CIT (Delhi)/Neutral Citation No.: 2024:DHC:9342-DB, referred to the decision in Geeta Duggal (supra), and held that in certain circumstances, multiple residential units may be considered as a single residential house for the purposes of exemption under Section 54F of the Act. The court observed as follows: –

“39. This assumes significance in the backdrop of our opinion that the word ‘a’ used in Section 54F of the Act denotes one singular residence, along with the caveat that in case the floors or houses are so constructed as to be used as one singular unit or capable of being used as such, they may fall within the definition of a residential house.”

24. The Madras High Court also held a similar view in CIT v. Gumanmal Jain [201 7] (Madras)/2017 SCC OnLine Mad 13653.

25. The aforesaid decisions were rendered in the context of construing whether the new asset purchased is ‘a residential house’ – an expression used in Section 54 and 54F of the Act. However, the said decisions would be equally applicable for construing the term ‘one residential house’ as used in clause (i) of the proviso to Section 54F of the Act. We say so because in Pawan Arya (supra) as well as in Gita Duggal (supra) and Mrs Kamla Ajmera (supra), the term ‘a residential house’ has been construed to mean ‘one residential house’. We find it difficult to accept that, in the given facts, different floors of a house are required to be considered as multiple residential houses.

26. In view of the above, we find no infirmity with the decision of the learned ITAT in holding that the Assessee could not be denied the deduction under Section 54F of the Act on the ground that she holds more than one residential unit.

27. We also find that there has been no failure on the part of the Assessee to truly and fairly disclose all the material facts in her return. The Assessee had fairly disclosed about the sale of the original asset, in respect of which capital gains had arisen as well as about the house property purchased from the said sale proceeds.

28. The configuration of ownership of the property, as recorded in the South Delhi Municipal Corporation records for D-6/5, does not lead to the conclusion that there was any failure on the part of the Assessee in disclosing the material facts relevant for claiming the deduction sought by the Assessee. 29. In view of the above, we find that no substantial question of law arises for consideration of this court. Accordingly, the appeal as well as the pending application is, accordingly, dismissed. “

8. It is important to take note of the fact that assessee has relied upon these judicial precedents of various Hon’ble High Courts which were placed before the ld. Assessing Officer in the submissions made in the assessment proceedings. Ld. Assessing Officer had taken cognizance of all the submissions including the factual position corroborated by documentary evidences based on which he found the submissions satisfactory and dropped the variation proposed in his show cause notice. He thus, took one of the plausible view, based on the factual position and the judicial precedents placed before him. Ld. PCIT has taken a contrary view of treating the triplex residential house as multiple flats owned by the assessee, which is not in conformity with the provisions of section 54F, so as to render the assessment made by the ld. Assessing Officer as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue.

8.1. It is a settled position of law, where the view taken by ld. Assessing Officer after due deliberation and examination of factual position as well as the judicial precedents, cannot be subjected to revisionary proceedings by adopting the other view. For this, we draw our force from the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT(A) v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. ITR 167 (Delhi), wherein it held that on facts and law, view taken by Assessing Officer was one of possible views and, therefore, assessment order passed by Assessing Officer could not be held to be prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. We also place our reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT(A) v. Max India Ltd. ITR 282 (SC) which also covers the case of the assessee.

8.2. Considering the facts on record and the discussion made above vis-a-vis the judicial precedents relied upon, we hold that the revisionary proceedings invoked by ld. PCIT and the revisionary order passed thereafter, is not in accordance with the provisions of section 263 and is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and quashed. Grounds raised by assessee in this respect are allowed.

9. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.