9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 868X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty accrues in favour of the purchaser, if he otherwise is so eligible to claim it as per the relevant provisions of the Act. The Assessing officer is directed to give the benefit of deduction u/s 54B of the Act in respect of the purchase of the property at Village Dadu to the assessee - appeal allowed - decided in favor of assessee. - ITA No. 1459/Chd/2016 - - - Dated:- 27-9-2017 - SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Appellant : Sh. T.N.Singla For The Respondent : Smt.Chanderkanta ORDER Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member: The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-3 [hereinafter referred to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d or to sell it further. The name of the assessee had also been entered in Kashra Girdawari a document showing the possession and cultivation of the land. It was also explained that at the time of the execution of the agreement to sell, the assessee was not aware of the Stay Order to the sale of land issued by the ADM and hence due to the above legal obstruction, the sale deed could not be registered. 3. The Ld. Assessing officer, however, rejected the above contention of the assessee and observed that the word used in section 54B of the Act is purchase and not the word transfer as defined u/s 2(47) of the Act. He observed that though as per the definition of word transfer it is not necessary to get deed registered, however, in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ied upon the findings of the lower authorities. 7. We have heard the rival contentions and have also gone through the record. Admittedly, the assessee paid the consideration through cheques and also obtained the possession of the property in question. The claim of deduction u/s 54B of the Act has been denied to the assessee on the ground that the said deed of purchase / sale had not been registered with the competent authority. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjeev Lal Vs. CIT (supra) has discussed as to whether the agreement to sell can be considered to be an instrument of transfer of property. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that though in normal circumstances by executing an agreement to sell in respect of immo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urther followed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Dr. Laxmichand Narpal Nagda , (supra), wherein the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has observed as under:- 6. Taking into consideration the letter as well as the spirit of section 54 and the towards used before the word Purchase in sub-section (2) of section 54, it seems to us that this said word is not used in the sense of legal transfer and, therefore, the holding of a legal title within a period of one year is not a condition precedent for attracting section 54. In the instant case, the whole consideration was paid, possession of the flat was obtained and it was actually put to use for dwelling within four months, as a result exemption contemplated u/s 54 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
