9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (7) TMI 686X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TP Act, the transfer of immoveable property is complete only when the registration of sale is completed. Though, as per section 47 of Registration Act it may relate back from the date of execution of document. In the present case, initially the document was executed on 8.10.2012, though; it was ultimately registered on 16.01.2013. The date of registration is not disputed by lower authorities. The lower authority denied the claim of assessee on the ground that the document was initially executed on 8.10.2012. No investigation was conducted by the assessing officer to disbelieve the contention of the assessee that finally transaction of transfer of asset was completed only on 16.01.2013. There is no distinction between the transfer of titl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the case are that the assessee is a non-resident/ individual, filed his return of income for Assessment Year 2013-14 on 26.07.2013 declaring return income of ₹ 94,75,480/-. In the computation of income, the assessee computed Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) on sale of land out of Survey No. 4451/1 and 431 (capital asset) at Dummas, District-Surat, Gujarat. The assessee claimed LTCG on sale of long term capital asset and also claimed exemption of capital gain of ₹ 50,00,000/- under section 54EC being investment made in National High way Authority of India (NHAI) bonds. During the assessment, the Assessing Officer noted that the document related to transfer of property i.e. sale-deed reflects two different date i.e. 8th Octobe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f transfer deed is in Gujarati and are not readable, thus, the assessee could not substantiate his claim and that it is not clear why the registry is registered on two different dates. Thus, further aggrieved, the assessee has filed this appeal before this Tribunal. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming action of the Assessing Officer of disallowing claim for exemption u/s. 54EC amounting to ₹ 50,00,000/-. 2. The appellant prays that: (i) It may be held that appellant is entitled to exemption u/s. 54EC amounting to ₹ 50,00,000/-; 3. We have heard the submission of ld. Authorized Representative (AR) of the assessee and ld. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the exemption under section 54EC by taking his view that investment in Long Term Specified Asset should be made within six month from the date of transfer of asset. The Assessing Officer treated the date of transfer as 8.10.2012 instead of 16.01.2013 as claimed by the assessee. The ld CIT(A) affirmed the action of assessing by taking the view that the transfer deed of the asset is in Guajarati and not readable and thus assessee has not proved 6. We have perused the copy of conveyance deed/sale deed on transfer of asset with its true English translation. Perusal of registration receipt of the transfer document shows that initial document was presented for registration vide Document No. 39, Receipt No. 2012322000055 dated 8.10.2012. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ally executed on 8.10.2012. No investigation was conducted by the assessing officer to disbelieve the contention of the assessee that finally transaction of transfer of asset was completed only on 16.01.2013. 9. Special Bench of Ahmedabad Tribunal in Alka Ben Patel Vs ITO [2014] 43 taxmann.com 333 (Ahd - Trib) (SB) held that as per the terms of General Clauses Act, 1897, period of six month mentioned in section 54EC has to be regarded as six British calendar months. The Special Bench referred and relied on the decision of Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT Vs Munnalal Shrikishan [1987] 167 ITR 415 (emphasis added by us). 10. Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in Amarchand J Aggarwal Vs UOI (supra) held that undoubtedly, section 47 o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
