9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 781X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it comes to the beneficial provisions of section 54F of the Act, what is required to be seen is whether the assessee has invested amount for purchase of property or not? And further that the claim of benefit u/s 54F of the Act cannot be denied on the ground of technical lapses like non-registration of agreement to sale, etc. That in case, the assessee proves with evidences that finally he had registered the property in his favour and further the investment was made within the stipulated period, then the exemption cannot be denied u/s 54F of the Act - Decided in favour of assessee. Addition u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) - land purchased in lieu of transfer of shares was shown less than market value/stamp duty value as determined by the stamp valuation authority - as market value was disputed by the assessee and therefore, the case was referred to Departmental Valuation Officer ( DVO ), who estimated the market value of the property differently - HELD THAT:- As admittedly, the difference in the value given by the DVO and the value mentioned by the assessee in the transfer deed is less than 5%. The market value determined by the DVO is purely a work of estimation only. In this case, there is a m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ideration of the house on the land purchased from Goenkas. However, the Assessing Officer observed that the land in question was leasehold property allotted by Asansol Durgapur Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the ADDA ) through Shri Ashoke Goenka and other and that the assessee has purchase right in the property from these persons vide agreement dated 03.08.2012. The Assessing Officer further noted that the assessee had not constructed residential property within two years of the sale of original asset (equity shares) and therefore, the assessee was not entitled for deduction u/s 54F of the Act. He in this respect observed that the land in question could not have been transferred without the permission of the ADDA. That though the vendors/allottees had applied to ADDA to transfer of land in favour of the assessee, however, no such permission was granted till date and therefore, there was no transfer of land upon which the house was constructed in favour of the assessee. He, therefore, disallowed the deduction claimed by the assessee u/s 54F of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... asset, hence it is not the same money but the amount equal to the net consideration received. 6.2 So far as the issue relating to belated transfer of the house in the name of the assessee is concerned, the ld. counsel for the assessee in this respect has made the following submissions: 1. Agreement dated 3.8.2012 (page 10-13) for purchase of land which also included clause 5,6 and 7 that the seller shall get the extension for construction of the property and that the purchaser shall make his construction. The seller had no alternative but the sale the land since the construction was not completed within 5 years of the date of allotment to them which they were getting extension after extension (vide clause (iii) page 19-20). 2. Extension taken by the seller vide page 14 wherein the permission of transfer was also applied for but ADDA stated that permission can be given on completion of the construction only. 3. Sanction of plan letter dated 16.8.2013 paper book page 4 4. Construction completed and CC granted vide page 16 5. Agreement for purchase by the first owner (seller of the assessee with ADDA)18-23 6. Application for transfer by seller in favour of purchaser to ADDA on 15.12. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The Judgement of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in CIT Vs H.K. Kapoor (Decd.) vide [1998] 234 ITR 753 (All) pronounced on 12.08.1997 7. The Judgement of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in CIT vs J.R. Subramanya Bhat vide [1987] 165 ITR 571 (Karn) pronounced on 09.06.1986 8. The Judgement of the Ld. ITAT, Delhi in Kapil Kumar Agarwal vs DCIT, Circle-1(1), Gurgaoon in ITA No.2630/Del/2015 pronounced on 30.04.2019 9. The Judgement of Hon'ble Madras High Court in MS. Moturi Lakshmi vs ITO vide [2020] 428 ITR 462 (Mad) pronounced on 17.08.2020 10. The Judgement of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs Smt. Nilofer I. Singh vide [2009] 309 ITR 233 ((Del) pronounced on 27.08.2008 6.4 We find that the issue is covered by the various decisions of courts of law. The decision of the Coordinate Chennai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Mr. Muthu Daniel Rajan vs ACIT dated 31.01.2023 (supra) is squarely applicable to the facts and issues in the present case. The Coordinate Chennai Bench of the Tribunal while relying upon the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Suraj Lamp Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana Another reported in [2012] 340 ITR 1 (SC) has held that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted in favour of purchaser, has been registered as required under the law. Therefore, in our considered view, when the assessee has filed evidences in the form of agreement to sale and if the agreement to sale date is considered, then the period of investment in new house property is less than one year before the date of sale of original asset and thus, in our considered view, the assessee is entitled for deduction u/s. 54F of the Act. 6.5 In view of the above discussion, this ground of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed in favour of the assessee. 7. Ground No.2 Vide Ground No.2, the Assessing Officer observed that though the value of the land purchased in lieu of transfer of shares was shown at Rs. 2,15,00,000/-, however, the market value/stamp duty value as determined by the stamp valuation authority was Rs. 2,46,25,681/-. The market value was disputed by the assessee and therefore, the case was referred to Departmental Valuation Officer ( DVO ). The DVO however estimated the market value of the property at Rs. 2,22,38,588/-. The Assessing Officer thus added Rs. 7,38,588/- invoking provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. 8. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
