TMI Blog1993 (1) TMI 115X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee claimed deduction under section 54 on account of the purchase price of the new house purchased by him for residence. The Assessing Officer, however, did not allow the deduction under section 54 on the ground that the new house was purchased atDelhinot within the period of one year as required under section 54 of the IT Act, 1961. The assessee had claimed that the sale deed was executed by the vendor Smt. Veena Mahajan in his favour on19-6-1980and, thereafter, a general power of attorney was also executed by the said vendor in his favour on11-7-1980. Therefore, the assessee stated that he purchased a new house within the period of one year though the sale deed was registered in the year 1984. The possession of the house was also said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on19-6-1980though it was registered on31-10-1984. The general power of attorney was also executed in favour of the assessee on11-7-1980. It would appear that the actual physical possession of the property was delivered to the assessee at the time of execution of the sale deed as is clear from para 3 of the document. The learned counsel for the assessee has relied on a decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT v. Mrs. Shahzada Begum [1988] 173 ITR 397. It was observed by the Court that the expression " purchase " would connote the domain and control of the property given into the assessee's hands. In that case it was clear that apart from the payment of substantial purchase consideration, the assessee had secured possessi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r purchased a house within a period of one year after the date of transfer or constructed a house for the purpose of residence within a period of two years after the date of transfer. From the facts brought on the record, we find that the assessee complied with all the requirements of section 54(1). The learned DR has, however, reiterated the stand taken by the CIT (Appeals) on the ground that the ownership in the property had not vested in the assessee till the sale deed was registered, and, therefore, he cannot be said to have purchased the property. The learned DR has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Alapati Venkataramiah v. CIT [1965] 57 ITR 185. In that case certain immovable land, plant and machinery were sol ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
