9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (2) TMI 846X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d residential premises as recorded in Assessment Order at page 2 are re-produced below: A/c No. 14272 towards Construction of Residential Premises: Cost of Land as on 11-11-1988 87,500 Amt. invested on 5-9-1989 15,000 29-11-1989 15,000 14-2-1990 15,000 45,000 Amt. invested on 21-11-1990 20,000 3-1-1991 20,000 19-1-1991 20,000 1-2-1991 20,000 14-3-1991 20,000 1,00,000 Amt. invested on 8-5-1991 40,000 Amt. invested on 6-4-1992 5,000 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... new residential house i.e. ₹ 5,000 on 6th April, 1992 and ₹ 13,240.20 on 15th October, 1992. 3. Before us the learned DR contended that the conditions laid down under the provisions of section 54F have not been complied with, as such the assessee was not entitled to exemption under section 54F to the tune of ₹ 1,30,330 as computed and added by the Assessing Officer in the Assessment Order. To support this contention he has drawn our attention that the assessee has not invested the amount in the new residential house within one year prior to the sale of shares. In other words no new investment in new residential house was made by the assessee from 17-6-1991 to 17-6-1992 as this fact is apparent from the detail of investment made by the assessee, the detail of which is given at page 2 of the Assessment Order. He further contended that in any case the assessee was entitled for the investment made in the new residential house on 15-10-1992 for which the exemption has already been granted by the Assessing Officer in his Assessment Order. He further contended that the CIT(A) has wrongly interpreted the Section 54F and also wrongly applied the decision of Karnataka Hi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... year prior to the sale of shares i.e. within a period of 17th June, 1991 to 17th June, 1992. Now coming to the contention of the assessee that the material point had to be determined is when the new house is completed and it was completed only after the sale of the said shares and in view of the ratio of decision mentioned and relied upon the assessee was entitled to get the exemption under section 54F. Thus, it is necessary to go through the judgments relied upon by the AR. In the case of Smt. Beena K. Jain (supra). The facts were that the assessee sold office premises in July 1987 which resulted in long term capital gain. Prior to the sale the assessee entered into an agreement for purchase of a residential flat in September 1985 which agreement was registered on 27th October, 1985. The construction of the flat was finally completed in July, 1988 and the assessee had paid the consideration on July 29, 1988 and was put into possession of the flat on July 30, 1988. The assessee claimed benefit of Exemption under section 54F and the said exemption was denied to the assessee by the department on account of agreement for the purchase of new flat was entered into more than one year pri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Builder agreeing to transfer from name of K.K. Gopaldas to the name of the assessee 24-3-1979 Date of payment of ₹ 20,780 23-4-1979 Date of payment of last instalment 16-5-1979 Municipal conditional letter of NOC for occupation 24-11-1979 Date of offer for possession 9-4-1980 Letter from Builder for readiness for completion certificate 13-5-1980 Date of possession. In this case it was not within the control of the assessee to get the possession from the Builder from whom the flat was purchased and the assessee thus was under the impression that as he got the possession of the said flat on 13th May, 1980 he is entitled to benefit of exemption under section 54 of the IT Act. In the present case as it is seen from the facts that entire investment in the new asset was made from 11-1-1988 to 8-5-1991, meagre sums were shown to be invested in the new asset of ₹ 5,000 on 6th April, 1992 and a sum of ₹ 13,240.20 on 15th October, 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
