Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2016 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (1) TMI 456 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - Eligibility for the benefit u/s 54F need to be denied as per CIT(A) - Held that:- The transfer was completed in terms of section 2(47)(v) by giving possession of the property in terms of the sale agreement dated 13.6.2005 registration was delayed on bonafide reasons which was beyond the control of the assessee and sale deed was executed on 25.11.2005 was only a legal formality. The jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Anand Food Products (2013 (11) TMI 1444 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT ) has observed that during the assessment proceedings the assessing officer had not only taken into account all the details but also disallowed some expenditure and made addition whenever same was required. A decision of the Assessing Officer could not be prejudicial to the interest of the revenue simply because it did not make detailed discussion and upheld the order passed by the Tribunal. Keeping in view of the above judicial precedent, we are of the opinion that the order passed by Assessing Officer is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and therefore the order passed by the Ld. CIT u/s 263 of the Act cannot survive. So far as merits of the case is concerned in respect of the claim u/s 54F of the Act, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has considered this issue in the case of Balraj Vs. CIT (2001 (12) TMI 51 - DELHI High Court ) and observed that for claiming benefit u/s 54F of the Act, it is not necessary that the assessee should become a owner of property purchased by him by registration of documents. In the present case, there is a memorandum of family agreement dated 15.10.2006 between assessee and his father & mother. In accordance with the above agreement assessee is entitled for 1/3rd share of the property. Therefore, in our opinion the assessee is entitled for the claim u/s 54F of the Act. The decision of the Delhi High Court squarely applies to the facts of the above case and we hold that the Assessing Officer on merits has allowed the case u/s 54F of the Act in accordance with law. This cannot be a case for revision u/s 263 of the Act. - Decided in favour of assessee
|