IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY VPH ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 1467 OF 2007 The Commissioner of Income Tax-11, Appellant Mumbai Vs Joe B. Fernandes ... Respondents Mr. Ran Upadhay, for the appellant. None for the respondent. CORAM: Dr. S. RADHAKRISHNAN, & V. C. DAGA, JJ. DATED: DECEMBER 10, 2008. P.C.: ---- . Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. None appears for the respondent. In the above appeal, appellant is seeking to raise following question of law- Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble Tribunal was justified in directing the Assessing Officer to allow exemption under section 54F in respect of two residential houses after verification whether these two flats i.e. Flat No.301 & 302 are adjacent to each other - 2 - and interconnected and used as one residential house and the investment has been made by the Assessee from his own account? 2. Perused the judgment and order of the Tribunal dated 5th July, 2007. The Tribunal has given its finding in Paragraph 7 of the impugned order as under- "It has been shown to us that investment was made by the assessee himself from his Bank account in respect of both the flats i.e. Flat No. 301 and 302 at Cozy Dwell Apartments, Bandra, Mumbai. However, this needs verification by the Assessing Officer. Further, the fact whether these two apartments are being used as one residential house or not is also to be verified. Accordingly the order of the CIT (A) is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of Assessing Officer to - (1) verify the fact whether investment in Flats No. 301 and 302 was made by the assessee from his own funds and (2) whether such flats a re adjacent to each other having common passage and are being used as one residential house. After ascertaining these - 3 - facts the Assessing Officer shall allow the exemption in respect of both the flats if it is found that both the flats are being used as one residential house and the investment was made by the assessee himself." 3. In view of the above, and in view of the remand, we do not find any substantial question of law in the above. Hence, the appeal stands dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- [ V.C. DAGA, J.] [ Dr. S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]