9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 1048X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 05. On these facts, it cannot be held that the effective date of ownership and right in the property in the assessee should be reckoned from 01.01.2005, that is, when the keys were given by the builder to the assessee. In fact, when the registered sale agreement was executed on 27.03.1994, the assessee had acquired the right in the property and such right got further fortified by the fulfillment of the covenants in the agreement by making the payment as per the time schedule. This further the possession was also given by issuance of occupation certificate on 10.03.1998. Thus, in all the aspect, the assessee not only became the owner of the property but also had all the rights in the said property much prior to 01.05.2005 in fact even prior to financial year 1998-99. Mere handing over the keys by the builder to the assessee does not in any manner prejudice or jeopardized the assessee’s right in the property when the builder has received the full consideration in FY 1998-99 and handed over the property with all rights and possession and was merely caretaker of the property. Thus, on the facts of the case, we hold that the assessee not only had right in the property for more than 3 ye ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3,82,520 Less: Deduction u/s 54EC Amount Invested ₹ 550,000/- -382,520 NIL The details of payment for the acquisition of the property made to the builder was disclosed in the following manner:- 1 Initial payment at the time of Booking of the Industrial Gala 02/06/1993 4,00,000 2 2nd Payment 01/08/1993 90,000 3 3rd Payment 01/08/1994 1,00,000 4 4th Payment 01/02/1995 52,590 5 5th Payment 05/05/1995 46,000 6 6th Payment 26/08/1995 46,000 7 Final payment FY 1998-99 139,510 TOTAL 874,000 8 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Ld. CIT(A), the detailed submissions were made which has been incorporated by the CIT(A) from the pages 5 to 10 of the appellate order. However, he summarily rejected assessee s contention after observing and holding as under:- I have considered the facts of the case and contention of the appellant. I find that the Assessing Officer s order is perfectly in order. It is not the occupancy certificate that will decide the position of the appellant. The position of the appellant is determined from the date when it took over the property by a Registered Deed. The said date is 01/01/2005 i.e. much after the occupancy certificate was issued. Therefore, the right of ownership was acquired by the appellant is on that date. It is right of ownership that stands transferred and not the right to possession. Therefore, the right of ownership was acquired by the appellant is on that date. It is of ownership that stands transferred and not the right to possession. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the order of the Assessing Officer and the same is confirmed and the grounds of appeal are dismissed . 5. Before us, the Ld. Counsel after explaining the entire facts and the backg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en only consequent deduction under section 54EC will flow. It is an undisputed fact from the perusal of the record that, assessee had acquired the industrial gala by way of registered sale agreement dated 27.03.1994 for a total consideration of ₹ 6,90,000/-. As per the payment of demand schedule, the entire payment of ₹ 8,74,000/- including the sale consideration as well as other outgoings was to be done upto financial year 1998-99. The entire payment as per the agreement was in fact made before financial year 1998-99. Occupation certificate was also issued on 10.03.1998. Thus, the property was not only complete but also occupation certificate was issued. It has been submitted by the assessee that, only for the maintenance purpose, the keys were handed over to the builder with whom the contract for maintenance was signed for the period of 3 years which later on was not renewed. When the builder was unable to cooperate with the maintenance, the keys were taken back by the assessee on 01.01.2005. On these facts, it cannot be held that the effective date of ownership and right in the property in the assessee should be reckoned from 01.01.2005, that is, when the keys were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
