Tribunal deems delay in property possession beyond control, upholds assessee's appeal

The Tribunal held that the assessee met the conditions under section 54 of the Income Tax Act by entering into an agreement and making substantial payments for a new property. The delay in registration and possession was deemed beyond the assessee's control. Additionally, it was found that the Assessing Officer conducted thorough verification and applied due diligence during the assessment proceedings. Consequently, the assessment order was deemed not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue's interest. The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, quashing the order issued by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax under section 263 of the Act.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the assessment order framed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.
2. Whether the conditions specified under section 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for claiming the exemption of long-term capital gain were satisfied.
3. Whether the Assessing Officer (AO) conducted necessary verification and applied his mind during the assessment proceedings.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Erroneous and Prejudicial Assessment Order
The primary issue raised by the assessee was that the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) erred in holding the assessment framed under section 143(3) of the Act as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The PCIT found that the assessee sold a property and claimed exemption under section 54 of the Act based on the purchase of a new property. However, the PCIT noted that the transaction for the purchase of the new property was not completed within the prescribed period as the balance payment was not made, and the property was not registered in the name of the assessee. Consequently, the PCIT issued a show cause notice and held the assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue.

Issue 2: Compliance with Section 54 of the Act
The assessee contended that the provisions of section 54 of the Act require the purchase or construction of a new property within the specified time, which was done through an agreement dated 31 March 2015. The assessee argued that the law does not mandate the registration of the new property or possession by the assessee for claiming the exemption. The Tribunal referred to various judicial precedents, including the Karnataka High Court's ruling in CIT v. Mrs. Shakuntala Devi and Pr. CIT v. C. Gopalaswamy, which supported the view that entering into an agreement and making substantial payments suffices for claiming the exemption under section 54, even if the registration and possession are delayed.

Issue 3: Verification by the Assessing Officer
The Tribunal examined whether the AO conducted necessary inquiries and applied his mind during the assessment proceedings. The AO issued multiple notices under section 142(1) of the Act, requesting details and documentary evidence regarding the purchase and sale of properties, cost of acquisition, and proof of claim under section 54. The assessee responded with the required documents and explanations. The Tribunal found that the AO had indeed conducted a thorough verification process and allowed the exemption under section 54 after due consideration.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the assessee satisfied the conditions under section 54 of the Act by entering into an agreement and making substantial payments for the new property. The delay in registration and possession was beyond the assessee's control. The Tribunal also determined that the AO conducted necessary verification and applied his mind during the assessment proceedings. Therefore, the assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The Tribunal quashed the order passed by the PCIT under section 263 of the Act and allowed the appeal of the assessee.

Order:
The appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the order pronounced in the Court on 17/09/2021 at Ahmedabad.

---