TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 1772X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... igh Court in Smt. Beena K. Jain [1993 (11) TMI 7 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] we hold that the assessee has fulfilled the condition laid down in section 54F of the Act. Accordingly, we cancel the order u/s 263 passed by the CIT - Decided in favour of assessee X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion u/s 54 to the tune of ₹ 48,00,313/- by purchasing properties at Poornima Building. He filed a Paper Book (P/B) showing the relevant dates in respect of the above transactions. Reference was also made by him to the following clauses of the agreement in respect of properties at Poornima Building: (i) clause 2 of the above agreement clearly states that unless the balance consideration of ₹ 34,00,000/- was received by 21.11.2007, the agreement would stand cancelled even if it was registered with the Sub Registrar of Assurances. (ii) sub clause (g) of clause 3 of the agreement states that the transferee (assessee) would be put into quiet and peaceful possession of the said premises only after making full payment to the transfe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rty at Poornima Building, the following facts emerge from the documents filed by the assessee in the P/B. Particulars Date Amount (Rs.) Page of the P/B Agreement for sale 17.09.2007 6,00,000/- 31-50 Loan sanctioned by Bank of Baroda 01.10.2007 22-25 Bank of Baroda Cheque date 08.10.2007 34,00,000/- 26 Date of handing over possession 10.10.2007 27-28 We also find that the agreement for sale of the flat at Runwal Towers was entered on 07.10.2008 in place of 17.10.2008 mentioned by the CIT in the order u/s 263 dated 04.03.2014 passed by him. That the date is 07.10.2008 is evident on the face of 'Agreement for Sale'. A similar issue arose before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Smt. Beena K. Jain (supra). In that case the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|