N.V. Vasudevan, Judicial Member - This appeal by the assessee is against the order dated 18.2.14 of the CIT(Appeals), LTU, Bengaluru relating to assessment year 2009-10.

2. The only issue that arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the revenue authorities were justified in denying the claim of deduction u/s. 54F of the Act.

3. The facts and circumstances under which the aforesaid issue arises for consideration are as follows. The assessee is an individual. During the previous year i.e., on 4.9.2008, the assessee sold a vacant site for a consideration of Rs.65,65,000. The assessee purchased another vacant site on 9.7.2009 for a sum of Rs. 42,75,000 and deposited the balance capital gain in the Capital Gains Account Scheme with Syndicate Bank, with a view to claim exemption of the entire capital gain on the sale of vacant site by investing the entire sale consideration received by acquiring another site and constructing residential house thereon.

4. Under section 54F of the Act, where capital gain arises from transfer of any long term capital asset, not being a residential house and the assessee has within a period of three years, after the date of transfer, constructed a residential house and the entire net consideration on sale of original asset is invested for construction of residential house, then the capital gain shall not be charged to tax u/s. 45 of the Act. Proviso to section 54(1) of the Act provides that the assessee shall not own on the date of transfer of original asset, more than one residential house, other than the new asset.

5. In the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer called upon the assessee to furnish various details and particulars and the same was furnished. On verification of the documents produced the AO observed that assessee had taken two housing Loans, one from HSBC and other from ICICI Bank. Thereafter, the learned A.O. called upon the banks to furnish the information and on verification, the A.O. found that the assessee had purchased a house property at #228, Odd No. 25, Kadirenahalli Village, Illiyasnagar, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk on 06/09/2003 by availing housing Loan from HSBC Bank and the assessee had purchased another house property at No. 518, 8-3, Malaprabha Block, National Games Village, Koramangala, Bangalore on 03/06/2006. The A.O. referred to the provisions of section 54F of the Act and observed that under the proviso to section 54F of the Act, the exemption will not be allowed if an assessee owns more than one residential house other than the new asset on the date of transfer of the original asset. The AO held that the assessee was owner of more than one residential house on the date of transfer of the vacant site and hence, the claim of exemption u/s. 54F of the Act was not allowable. In this view of the matter, the AO denied the exemption claimed u/s. 54F of the Act and assessed the long term capital gains of Rs. 53,69,952 to tax in the impugned order.

6. Details of particulars furnished by the assessee referred to above is a statement of affairs as on 31.3.2009 filed before the AO. As per the aforesaid statement, assets side of the statement of affairs disclosed the following three properties:—

(1) No. 222, No.25, Kaderanahalli Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore.

(2) No. 518, 5th Floor, Malaprabha, Bangalore NGHP, Koramangala.

(3) No. 228, Kaderanahalli Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore.

7. Before the CIT(Appeals), the assessee submitted that the assessee merely derives income from salary and other sources and was filing her returns of income and apart from the same, she was not aware of the income-tax proceedings. During the course of the assessment proceedings, when the learned A.O. called upon her to produce details, she had placed the matter in the hands of her Advocate/Tax Practitioner for necessary action. It appears that the Advocate/Tax Practitioner of the assessee produced certain details, but, he did not appraise he