9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 331X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is made in a new property and the construction was completed within a period of three years as narrated in section 54 of the Act, the delay was not because of the assessee and is beyond his control and upheld the order of the Tribunal. In the case of Sardarmal Kothari [ 2008 (6) TMI 15 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] has observed that assessee having purchased land by investing the capital gains and constructed residential house and also produced completion certificate from the municipal authority, exemption u/sec. 54F could not be denied on the ground that the construction was not completed within the specified period. We are of the opinion that assessee s claim u/sec. 54 cannot be denied. Hence, the order passed by the ld.CIT(A) is cancelled and dir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0/-. No tax was deducted by the buyer and the assessee who is a non-resident has also not filed her return of income for the A.Y. 2009-10. Therefore, case of the assessee was reopened. A notice u/sec. 143(2) & 142(1) dated 16/05/2016 was issued to the assessee. In response to that, assessee vide letter dated 30/05/2016 furnished the relevant information from time to time as called for by the Assessing Officer. 3. In the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has noted that on verification of the information furnished and the return of income filed, assessee has been asked to substantiate for claim of exemption u/sec. 54 in respect of sale proceeds received by her. In response to that, ld.AR submitted before the Assessing Officer that in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... some minor repair works, therefore, submitted that assessee's claim u/sec. 54 cannot be denied. He relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Pr. CIT & Ano. Vs. Dilip Ranjrekar [(2019) 177 DTR (Kar.) 158] and also the judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sardarmal Kothari [(2008) 302 ITR 286]. 7. On the other hand, ld.DR relied on the orders of the authorities below. 8. We have heard both the sides, perused the material available on record and orders of the authorities below. 9. The assessee is a non-resident along with her husband entered into a development agreement on 21/07/2008 and as per the agreement, construction of the building has to be completed within a period ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pleted on or before 20/07/2011. There is a delay near about five months as per the completion certificate submitted by the builder. Insofar as argument of the assessee is concerned, assessee has received flat on 20/02/2011, the same is sold to the third party, nowhere neither Assessing Officer nor ld.CIT(A) has considered the submission of the assessee. Both the authorities below proceeded only on the basis of completion certificate produced by the builder and denied the exemption claimed by the assessee. Under these facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that simply there is a delay on the part of the builder in non-completing the construction on account of minor repairs and obtained completion certificate subsequently, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
