9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 795X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tal asset. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred to appreciate that the date of registration of agreement i.e. 31.01.2007 shall be considered for judging the eligibility of deduction u/s 54. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not interpreting the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of R.L. Sood - 245 ITR 727 wherein it was held that for the purpose of section 54, the date of agreement to purchase should be taken as the date of purchase". 2. Brief facts are that, the assessee is an individual who has sold property, wherein he was 50% owner along with the other coowner, Smt. Surekha C Shah, for an amount of Rs. 34,02,147/-. The said sale proceeds have been invested in the purchase of a new flat to the extent of Rs. 30,07,775/- and consequently exemption has been claimed u/s 54. AO noted that purchase agreement for new flat was 31.01.2007 and old flat was sold on 06.04.2009. Hence, the window period in which the assessee should have made the investment was between 06.04.2008 and 05.04.2011 to claim the exemption u/s 54. In response to the show cause notice, the assessee had submitted and stated as under :- "Assessee has re-invested the sale proceeds of the said flat in new reside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ification dated 19.04.2008 was registered vide number DR-5272/1/2008. Thus both documents were duly registered as per the provisions of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act (MOFA), 1963. A careful reading of the Agreement for Sale dated 23.01.2007 shows that the document is only a base document for the proposed sale of the flat and contains no clause that indicates transfer of ownership of the flat booked by the appellant. Rather, it only lays down in great detail the terms and conditions, subsequent to the fulfillment of which, the flat in question will be sold to the appellant. In contrast, the Deed of Rectification dated 19.04.2008 clearly states in Clauses 2 and 3 as follows: "2. That the purchasers have purchased Flat No. 1302 on 13th Floor, A Wing in the Building known as "Waterford" at C.D. Barfiwala Road, Andheri West, Mumbai -400 058, due to inadvertence in the Agreement number of Flat is wrongly mentioned as Flat No. 1402 on 14th Floor A Wing "Waterford" at C.D. Barfiwala Road, Andheri West, Mumbai -400 058. 3. That hereinafter the purchasers shall be known as the owners of Flat No. 1302 on 13''' Floor A Wing "WATERFORD" at C.D. Barfiwala Road, Andheri We ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty). The non Die High Court he'd that ownership would be taken from the point in time when 'domain and control were given into the assessee's hands' and allowed the claim of the appellant. 6.53 In the case of CIT v Dr. Laxmichand N. Nagda reported at 211 ITR 804, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court adjudicated on a matter wherein exemption u/s 54 had been disallowed by the A.O. on the grounds that the sale deed was not registered within the specified period. The Court while examining the allowability of the claim emphasized that the meaning of the word purchase should be construed liberally and held as follows: "The word 'purchase' is not defined under the Act and, therefore, resort to its ordinary meaning, as understood by a lay-man, will have to be made. In many dictionaries, the word 'purchase means the acquisition of property by party's own act, as distinguished from acquisition by act of law. The content demands not the literal interpretation but liberal and wider interpretation. Giving the contextual meaning to the word 'purchase in an insurance policy, the Madras High Court in the case of C. Duraiswami Iyengar v. United India Life Assuranc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Rs. 30,07,775/- the grounds, raised by the appellant are allowed". 5. Before us, the Ld. Counsel referred to the following chronology of events :- Sr. No. Date Particulars 1 31.01.2007 Agreement for purchase for Flat No. 1402 2 19.04.2008 Agreement for purchase for Flat No. 1302 3 02.12.2008 Last payment made for purchase 4 22.01.2009 Possession received for flat purchase 5 30.03.2009 Agreement for sale 6 06.04.2009 Agreement for sale registered and submitted that, in fact the property has been purchased within one year if the relevant dates viz. 19.04.2008 and 22.01.2009 or 20.03.2009 is taken into consideration. The reasons given by the CIT(A) are based on proper appreciation of facts and material on records and hence such a finding cannot be tinkered with. 6. The Ld. DR strongly relied upon the order of the AO and submitted that, what is to be seen within the terms of "section 54" is not the date of agreement for sale registration and the possession received by the assessee. Thus, here in this case, the period of 1 year had elapsed. 7. After considering the rival contentions and on perusal of the relevant finding given ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
