TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 485X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... As rightly observed by the learned CIT(A), this is not a case where only the property has not been registered within the time specified under Section 54F of the Act. We also find, from an appreciation of the facts on record, that the assessee's claim that he has obtained a substantial claim over the residential flat, as it has been booked in his daughter’s name is not correct, as the assessee does not have even an enforceable right in the matter vis-a-vis Brigade Enterprises Ltd. The provisions of law in this regard are very clear, in that the investment in the purchase / acquisition of a new property should necessarily be in the name of the assessee and not in the name of another person and the subsequent intimation of change of the booking of the flat in the name of the assessee by a mere letter of Brigade Enterprises Ltd., does not fulfill the requirements of the provisions of section 54F of the Act. See Jai Narayan V ITO [2007 (8) TMI 295 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] - the authorities below have correctly rejected the assessee's claim for exemption of ₹ 88,98,970 under Section 54F of the Act. - Decided against assessee. - I.T.A. No.13/Bang/2014 - - - Dated:- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... II, ought to have appreciated the evidences and documents furnished in support of the grounds of appeal. 5. On the facts, the additions to the admitted income as sustained by CIT (Appeals) - III, Bangalore, is excessive, arbitrary, unreasonable which ought to be reduced in total. 4. The Grounds raised at S.Nos. 1, 4 5 (supra) being general in nature and not urged before us in appellate proceedings, are dismissed as infructuous. 5. Ground Nos.2 and 3 - Disallowance of claim of Exemption u/s.54F : ₹ 88,98,970. 5.1 In the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had claimed exemption of ₹ 88,98,970 u/s.54F of the Act, against the LTCG on Transfer of shares on 21.8.2008 amounting to ₹ 28,27,33,919. The exemption claimed is in respect of investment in the purchase of a residential flat at Bangalore from M/s. Brigade Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. ( BEPL ). On examination of the assessee's claim, the Assessing Officer found that a flat was booked in the name of one Anu Joseph, daughter of the assessee, vide Agreement to sell dt.30.12.2006 with Brigade Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. for a consideration of ₹ 93,71,456. Out ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s taken place only on 28.3.2011. It is thus clear that the appellant has not adhered to the time frame contemplated by the provisions of section 54F. What has transpired is that an amount of ₹ 67,15,910 has been paid to the builder before one year from the date of sale and after two years from the date of sale of long term capital asset for acquiring a flat in the name of the daughter and this has with the time frame laid down in section 54F. It is incorrect to say that the appellant has obtained a substantial domain over the new residential flat as the flat has been booked in the name of the appellant s daughter. Even what the appellant s daughter had obtained by making such payment is only an enforceable right. This does not tantamount to acquisition of a new residential house as contemplated in 54F. 3.4 Further, it is very clear that investment in a new asset should be in a name of the assessee and not in the name of a family member. The subsequent transfer of the flat in the name of the assessee after a period of two years from the date of sale does not fulfill the requirements of the provisions of section 54F. The fact that the investment in the new asset should be in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reak of the investment for purchase of property period wise is as under :- S.No. Date Amount Rs. S.No. Date Amount Rs. 1. 23.11.2006 12,65,000 2. 24.11.2006 1,68,360 3. 27.12.2006 7,49,700 4. 24.3.2006 7,88,630 5. 02.05.2007 8,45,581 6. 9.7.2007 8,52,309 7. 11.9.2007 8,45,878 8. 6.11.2007 8,45,878 9. 21.1.2008 8,45,878 10 14.3.2008 8,45,878 11. 3.6.2008 8,45,878 12. 28.3.2011 4,72,4386 13. 28.3.2011 4,00,940 Total ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -605, C Wing Corona, Brigade Gateway, Bangalore from M/s. Brigade Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. vide Agreement dt.30.12.2006. The total investment in the purchase of this property was ₹ 97,72,396 and the break-up of these payments as furnished by the assessee are as under :- S.No. Date Amount Rs. S.No. Date Amount Rs. 1. 23.11.2006 12,65,000 2. 24.11.2006 1,68,360 3. 27.12.2006 7,49,700 4. 24.3.2006 7,88,630 5. 02.05.2007 8,45,581 6. 9.7.2007 8,52,309 7. 11.9.2007 8,45,878 8. 6.11.2007 8,45,878 9. 21.1.2008 8,45,878 10 14.3.2008 8,45,878 11. 3.6.2008 8,45,878 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sition of a new property should necessarily be in the name of the assessee and not in the name of another person and the subsequent intimation of change of the booking of the flat in the name of the assessee by a mere letter of Brigade Enterprises Ltd., does not fulfill the requirements of the provisions of section 54F of the Act. As held by the learned CIT(A), the fact that the investment in the purchase of the new flat should be in the name of the assessee has been laid down in the following decisions of the Hon'ble High Courts :- i) Jai Narayan V ITO in 306 ITR 335 (P H) ii) Prakash V ITO in 312 ITR 40 (Mum) iii) Vipin Malik (HUF) V CIT in 330 ITR 309 (Delhi). The judicial pronouncements, relied on by the assessee have been considered carefully and we find that these have been already cited before the learned CIT(A) and are distinguished in the impugned order. We concur with the views of the learned CIT(A) in this matter that the cited cases are factually and legally distinguishable from the case on hand. 5.5.4 In view of the facts and circumstances of the case as discussed above, we are of the considered view that in the factual and legal matrix of the case as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
