Court rules possession, not just registration, key for tax exemption under Income-tax Act

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh ruled in favor of the assessee, holding that the crucial factor for exemption under section 54(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was the actual possession and control of the property within one year, not just the registration date. Despite a delay in registration, the assessee acquired domain and control of the new property within the statutory period, fulfilling the conditions for exemption. The Court concluded that the new residential property was purchased within the required timeframe, overturning the decision of the Income Tax Officer and the Appellate Authority.

---

---

Issues: Interpretation of exemption u/s 54(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for capital gains on sale of residential property.

Summary:
The High Court of Andhra Pradesh considered a reference made by the Tribunal regarding the eligibility of an assessee for exemption u/s 54(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 1976-77. The assessee sold a house property and claimed exemption by utilizing the proceeds to acquire another property for self-occupation. The dispute revolved around the timing of the purchase in relation to the date of possession and registration of the new property.

The assessee sold a property for &8377; 38,750 and entered into an agreement to purchase another property for &8377; 47,000, paying a substantial sum upfront. Although the sale deed was registered after one year from the sale of the original property, the assessee obtained possession of the new property within the stipulated one-year period. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) considered the registration date as crucial, denying the exemption, a decision upheld by the Appellate Authority but reversed by the Tribunal.

The High Court held that the critical factor was the actual possession and control of the property by the assessee within one year, not just the registration date. Despite the delay in registration, the assessee had acquired domain and control of the new property within the statutory period, fulfilling the conditions of section 54(1) for exemption. Therefore, the Court ruled in favor of the assessee, concluding that the new residential property was purchased within the required timeframe.

---