9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 651X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been allowed in scrutiny proceedings, then the AO cannot withdraw the claim u/s 154, by mere change of opinion and without there being any apparent mistake on record. It is well settled proposition that AO cannot review his own order within the limitation and scope of section 154. There is no mistake apparent on record for the reason that; firstly, the formalities of sale and receiving of the entire sale amount was completed including handing of the possession was duly completed within the period of one year, that is, by the month of November 2012; and only due to some exceptional and unavoidable circumstances, there was a delay in registration which, here in this case. Secondly, it is undisputed fact that assessee has purchased the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the assessee u/s 54 of the Act. 3. The facts in brief are that the assessee has filed her return of income showing total income of ₹ 24,70,668/-. In the return of income, the assessee has claimed exemption u/s 54 in respect of long term capital gain arising out of sale of a property and purchase of new house property. Assessing is joint owner of a property at A-1/112, Safdarjung Enclave along her husband. The property was divided into two portions, the assessee was the 100% owner of the Southern portion of this property and this portion was sold by the assessee for ₹ 79 lakhs and the sale deed was executed on 23.07.2012. The Northern portion of the property was held by the assessee along with her husband and both were havi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 13.01.2012 81,81,278/- . From the aforesaid facts, it is crystal clear that the assessee has purchased the new capital asset (on 13.01.2012) beyond the permissible period of one year before the date on which the transfer took place (i.e. on 24.01.2013). Therefore, the claim of exemption u/s 54 to the tune of ₹ 36,74,449/- shall be disallowed. In order to rectify the above mistake, a notice u/s 154 dated 02.03.2017 was issued to the assessee to file the reply on or before 08.03.2017. The assessee has filed her reply vide letters dated 08.03.2017 and 03.04.2017 which were duly considered but not found tenable under the provisions of Income-tax Act, 1961. In view of above, the income of the aforesaid assessee i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s the prescribed time for making the investment prior to the sale of property was from 13.01.2012 to 13.01.2013 and here in this case, the assessee has made the investment in the new property prior to the prescribed period on 13.01.2012 and sold on 24.01.2013 and hence there it is beyond 1 year. Thus, once the sale consideration was received and possession was given and simply because the registration was done on some later date, the exemption cannot be denied. 5. On the other hand, ld. DR strongly relied upon the order of the AO and ld. CIT (A) and clearly the exemption us 54 cannot be available as it was beyond the time limit. 6. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material referred to before us. First of all, form the pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
