TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 1240X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 18 - - - Dated:- 30-7-2021 - SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER And SHRI KULDIP SINGH , JUDICIAL MEMBER ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SHRI MAHESH THAKUR , SENIOR DR ORDER PER KULDIP SINGH , JUDICIAL MEMBER : Appellant, ITO, Ward 32 (4), New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Revenue ) by filing the present appeal sought to set aside the impugned order dated 23.03.2018 passed by the Commissioner of Income - tax (Appeals) - 11, Delhi qua the assessment year 2015-16 on the grounds inter alia that :- 1. Whether the Ld. CIT (A) was justified in deleting the addition levied by the AO disallowing the deduction u/s 54F of the Act disregarding the facts of the case. 2. Whether the Ld. CIT (A) was justified in deleting the addition levied by the AO disallowing the deduction u/s 54F of the Act since primary requirements necessitating transfer under Sec 53A of transfer of immovable property act are not satisfied. 3. Whether the Ld. CIT (A) was justified in deleting the addition levied by the AO disallowing the deduction us 54F of the Act disregarding the report of Inspector wherein it has been reported that the property In Issue was in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e been purchased by her in the house property out of which 1/3rd share is already owned by the assessee since 2008 by way of conveyance deed between the assessee and builder along with her parents. It is also not in dispute that assessee has brought on record Agreement to Sell, General Power of Attorney and possession letter dated 19.03.2015 along with detail of payment made to her parents for purchase of property. 7. AO disallowed the deduction claimed u/s 54F of the Act on the ground that transfer of immovable property i.e. house property qua which deduction has been claimed by the assessee, is complete only by way of registered sale deed. 8. In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the sole question arises for determination in this case is:- as to whether deduction claimed by the assessee u/s 54F of the Act for the investment made in the house property is allowable only after registration of sale deed in favour of the assessee/claimant? 9. Ld. CIT (A) thrashed and decided this issue in favour of the assessee by relying upon the decisions of the Hon ble Supreme Court Hon ble High Courts in the cases of CIT vs. Balbir Singh Maini (Su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ltd. [1997]226 ITR 625 (SC), is a case under the Income-tax Act and has to be taken as a trendsetter in the concept of ownership. Assistance from the law laid down therein can be taken for finding out the meaning of the term owned as occurring in section 32(1) of the Act. The term owned as occurring in section 32(1) of the Income-tax Act must be assigned a wider meaning. Anyone in possession of property in his own title exercising such dominion over the property as would enable others being excluded therefrom and having the right to use and occupy the property and/or to enjoy its usufruct in his own right would be the owner of the building though a formal deed of title may not have been executed and registered as contemplated by the Transfer of Property Act, the Registration Act, etc. Building owned by the assessee , the expression as occurring in section 32(1) of the Income-tax Act, means the person who having acquired possession over the building in his own right uses the same for the purposes of the business or profession though a legal title has not been conveyed to him consistently with the requirements of laws such as the Transfer of Property Act and the Registration Act, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ect of which the assessee had not obtained a deed of conveyance from the vendor although it had taken possession and made part payment of the consideration. 12. Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in case of Charanjit Singh Atwal and Ors. vs. ITO in ITA No.276/Chd/2012 also dealt with the identical issue and decided the same in favour of the assessee in the light of the provisions contained u/s 2(47)(v)(vi) of the Act as well as u/s 53 of the Transfer of Property Act by following the law laid down by Hon ble Supreme Court in case of Surana Steel vs. DCIT 237 ITR 777 (SC) by returning following findings :- 70. A plain reading of the above provision shows that it provides a safety measure or a shield in the hands of the transferee to protect the possess ion of any property which has been given by the transferor as lawful possession under a particular agreement of sale. This position of law was incorporated in the definition of transfer by insertion of clauses (v) (vi) in section 2(47) of the Act. It is important to note that clause (v) uses the expression contract of the nature referred to in section 53A of T.P. Act, therefore, clearly the idea is that an agreement which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
