TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 1613X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... estment is restricted only upto ₹ 50,00,000/-. In the instant case, the purchase agreement was registered on 05.08.2011. Again an additional stamp duty of ₹ 1,41,070/- was paid on 22.03.2012 and thus the registration was completed. The appellant purchased the REC Bond on 31.03.2012. As per it the assessee has paid ₹ 1,41,070/- towards additional stamp duty on 22.03.2012 to complete the process of registration of the ‘Purchase Agreement’. The assessee filed its return of income for the impugned assessment year on 20.03.2014. The AO completed the assessment u/s 143(3) on 04.03.2015. Thus no one can say that the payment of additional stamp duty by the assessee is an afterthought. To sum up by paying the additional stamp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iginal computation of income, the assessee had claimed deduction u/s 54EC by investing in Rural Electrification Corporation Ltd. (REC) Bonds and u/s 54 of the Act. 3.1 The assessee invested the sale proceeds in REC Bonds worth ₹ 50,00,000/-. The allotment date as appearing on the REC Bond is 31.03.2012. The Assessing Office (AO) observed following from clause III of the sale agreement dated 29.03.2012 : The vendor confirms that in pursuance of the present agreement, he has already surrendered possession of the said premises to the purchasers with effect from 5th day of August, 2011 (05.08.2011) and that the purchasers are in occupation of the said premises since then in their own rights. The AO thus came to a finding that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee is squarely covered by the inclusive definition of transfer in section 2(47)(v) which speaks of any transaction allowing possession of any property in part performance of a contract. The agreement to sale is a contract which has been part performed by both the parties i.e. by the appellant allowing possession to the purchaser and receipt of part consideration. The Ld. CIT(A) observed that the asset had been transferred on 05.08.2011 and therefore, the AO is correct in holding that the window of investment in REC Bonds closed on 05.02.2012. For the purpose of investment in new residential house u/s 54 or 54F, what is important is the substance of the transaction (in this case asset transferred on 05.08.2011) and not the date of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll these sub-sections of section 2(47) are not mutually exclusive, the Ld. CIT(A) should have given benefits of doubts to the appellant who made investment in REC Bonds on 31.03.2012 i.e. within 9 days from actual transfer on 22.03.2012 relying on the decision in CIT v. Rubi Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. (2003) 259 ITR 54 (Raj), Jotinder H. Shodhan v. ITO (2015) 278 CTR (Guj) 98 and K.M. Sugar Mills v. CIT (2015) 278 CTR (SC) 100. The Ld. counsel submits that since section 54EC does not provide any definition of transfer, the appellant ought to be guided by generally and legally accepted meaning of the word actual registered transfer and hence, has made the investment in REC Bonds just within 15 days of actual transfer. It is submitted tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... date of such transfer in the long-term specified asset provided such specified asset is not transferred or converted into money within a period of three years from the date of its acquisition. The investment is restricted only upto ₹ 50,00,000/-. In the instant case, the purchase agreement was registered on 05.08.2011. Again an additional stamp duty of ₹ 1,41,070/- was paid on 22.03.2012 and thus the registration was completed. The appellant purchased the REC Bond on 31.03.2012. We refer here to page 25 of the Paper Book (P/B) filed by the assessee. As per it the assessee has paid ₹ 1,41,070/- towards additional stamp duty on 22.03.2012 to complete the process of registration of the Purchase Agreement . The assessee f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
