9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 687X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on can be construed as completion of construction. Hence, the assessee deserves to succeed on account of construction of house within 3 years of the date of sale/transfer of the original asset - Appeal of the assessee is allowed. - Shri Shamim Yahya, Accountant Member And Ms. Astha Chandra, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Shri Suraj Bhan Nain, Advocate, Shri Mahfuzur Rahman, CA For the Revenue : Ms. Anita Meena, Sr. DR ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. CIT (Appeals)-2, Gurgaon dated 16.11.2015 pertaining to the assessment year 2012-13. 2. Grounds of appeal taken by the assessee read as under :- 1. Under the facts and circum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Ld. First Appellate Authority has grossly erred by giving substance value to the words 'Purchasing' and 'Sell' used in the Agreement, without considering the actual nature of the action of investing in new asset. 3. In this case, AO noted that assessee has sold his immovable property during the relevant financial year and earned long term capital gain of Rs. 91,73,335/- which was claimed as exempt under section 54 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'). AO noted that assessee has entered into an Agreement to Purchase the new residential property i.e. A-9/37, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi for Rs. 10,00,00,000/- vide Agreement to Sell dated 11.10.2010 which the AO noted is beyond within one year before . ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see also contended that the word purchase has a wide connotation and that purchase date would be the date of allotment letter and not the date of agreement to sell. Ld. CIT (A) noted that assessee had failed to establish that the purchase of house was made within the period as provided in the Income-tax Act in order to be eligible for deduction u/s 54 of the Act. Ld. CIT (A) also noted that even otherwise, from the facts on record, it is evident that the agreement to sell was signed on 06.10.2010 which is a date beyond one year before the date of sale on which capital gains arose and the final registration i.e. sale deed was signed on 27.03.2015 which date is beyond the period of 2 years from the date of sale. Therefore, ld. CIT (A) held ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... claim of exemption. 7. Per contra, ld. DR for the Revenue disputed that the issue covered by the aforesaid case relied upon by the assessee. He submitted that the same is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 8. Upon careful consideration, we find that Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of Akshay Sobti (supra) has held as under :- It is an accepted position and is not disputed by the Revenue that the 24 assessee had sold the property at Jor Bagh on December 2t 2011, On the said sale/ the assessee has claimed deduction of capital gains under section 54 of the Act, The assessee was required to purchase a residential house property either one year before, or within two years after the date of transfer of original asset ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant has claimed deduction on the amount invested till the due date of filing of return under section 139(1) of the Income-tax Act. In this factual background, we do not find any cogent ground to hold that the respondents do not fulfil the conditions laid down under section 54(1) of the Act so as to deny the benefit of the said provision. The apprehension expressed by the learned senior standing counsel for the Revenue is not borne from the facts on record. The provision in question is a beneficial provision for the assessees, who replace the original long-term capital asset by a new one. 9. Ld. Counsel of the assessee has further made a comparative chart of the case before Hon ble Delhi High Court and the assessee case as under :- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
