TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 161X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t put into the possession of the same by the seller or had not taken the possession of the same for any other reason, would in no way adversely affect her entitlement towards claim of exemption under the said statutory provision. The fact that the assessee had purchased the new residential house vide registered agreement dated 06.06.2012 i.e within the stipulated period of 2 years from the date on which the old residential house was sold by her on 14.11.2011 is not in dispute before us - the assessee had duly complied with the requisite conditions contemplated in Sec.54 , hence her claim of exemption under the said statutory provision was well in order - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No.3025/Mum/2017 - - - Dated:- 27-2-2019 - Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Accountant Member And Shri Ravish Sood, Judicial Member For the Appellant : Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, D.R For the Respondent : Shri R.C. Modi Ms. Ketki Rajeshirke, A.Rs ORDER PER RAVISH SOOD, JM The present appeal filed by the revenue is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A)-56, Mumbai, dated 18.01.2017, which in turn arises from the order passed by the A.O under Sec. 143(3) of the In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al flat viz. B-702, Windsor Grande Residences, Goregaon West, Mumbai, due to an internal dispute between the aforesaid company and its director. The A.O holding a conviction that as the assessee had not received the possession of the residential flat within the stipulated period of 2 years, therefore, she was not eligible for claim of exemption under Sec.54 of the IT Act. On the basis of his aforesaid observations the A.O disallowed the claim of exemption raised by the assessee under Sec.54 and assessed her total income at ₹ 2,94,24,530/-. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) after deliberating at length on the contentions advanced by the assessee was persuaded to subscribe to the same, and observed as under: I have carefully considered the fact of the case, submissions of the appellant and the contentions of the A.O. During the year under consideration , the appellant had sold residential property and had earned Long Term Capital Gain amounting toRs.2,21,50,000/- from such sale. Further, the appellant had claimed an exemption u/s 54 of the IT Act, 1961 of the said amount which was computed as follows: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons of section 54 in view of the fact that the assessee had acquired substantial domain over the flat in question under the agreement with the Society coupled with the payment of almost the entire cost of construction within a period of two years and possession of the flat was not given within stipulated period which is beyond the control of the appellant. It is also held in the cases relied upon by the appellant above that, possession is mere formality and accordingly exemption was granted. The reliance is placed on: CIT vs. Mrs. Hilla J.B. Wadia (216 ITR 376) Bom HC. Hasmukh N Gala, Mumbai vs. ITO, ITAT No: 7512 / Mum /2013 Accordingly, considering the facts of the case, contentions of the appellant respectfully following the various judicial pronouncements discussed above, I am of the opinion that the claim of the appellant of the exemption under Sec.54 should be allowed. 5. The revenue being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) has carried the matter in appeal before us. The ld. Departmental Representative (for short D.R ) at the very outset of the hearing of the appeal submitted that as the assessee was not put into the possession of the new ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2, Windsor Grande Residences, Goregaon West, Mumbai, vide a registered agreement dated 06.06.2012 for a consideration of ₹ 4,85,41,660/-. On a perusal of the records it stands revealed that the assessee till the due date of filing of her return of income had made a payment of ₹ 3,62,34,230/- to the builder, while for the balance amount of ₹ 92,78,100/- was paid subsequently. It is a matter of fact discernible from the orders of the lower authorities that due to an internal dispute between the aforesaid seller company i.e. Windsor Realty Pvt. ltd. and its director, the possession of the aforementioned residential flat was not delivered to the assessee upto 11.07.2017. The A.O being of the view that as the assessee had not taken the possession of the aforementioned new residential flat within a period of 2 years envisaged in Sec.54 of the IT Act, thus concluded that the assessee was not eligible for claim of exemption under Sec. 54 in respect of the investment so made by her. 8. We have deliberated at length on the issue under consideration and are unable to persuade ourselves to subscribe to the view taken by the A.O. On a perusal of Sec. 54 of the IT Act, it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
