TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (1) TMI 703
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le deed executed on 6.11.2007 by Silver Oak Builders and Developers and the others of the land on the one side and the appellant on the other side was of the entire apartment itself on the said date which fell beyond one year of the sale of the original asset on 10.3.2006 and that in the case of Shobha Developers, the transaction was one for construction as can be seen from the fact that only undivided interest in land was registered and thus both the transactions were entirely different in material respects. iv) The Hon'ble Commissioner erred in not considering the claim of the appellant that the assessee was entitled to exemption of the entire investment upto the date of the filing of the return u/s 139(4) as was held by our jurisdictional Tribunal in the case of Nipun Mehrotra reported in 297 ITR at page 110. v) The appellant denies liability to interest u/s 234B. 3. The assessee disclosed a sum of Rs.25,33,039/- under long term capital gains received from the private trust in respect of her 33.3% share from the consideration of the assets sold by the trust. While completing the assessment for the asst. year 2006-07, the total gains on account of sale of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h May, 2006., observed that the property was constructed and not purchased. Accordingly, the learned CIT(A) held that Silver Oak Apartment has been constructed and therefore, the longer time limit of 10th March, 2009 will apply to it. Another new asset in Sobha Daisy was an apartment and that stood constructed on 25th March, 2008. The second apartment has also been constructed within 3 years from the date of transfer of the original asset. In view of construction of 2 flats within 3 years from the date of transfer of the original asset and due to such factual position, the assessee is not entitled to deduction u/s 54F in view of proviso to section 54F. The learned CIT(A) therefore confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer. 4. We have heard both the parties. The appellant entered into sale agreement dated 16th May, 2006 with Mr. Manoharan Jeyachandran and others and in that agreement, M/s Square Builders and Developers was a confirming party. Mr. Manoharan Jeyachandran and others were having rights in his site and the site was to be developed by the confirming party i.e. M/s Square Builders and Developers. As per the sale agreement, the assessee was paid a sum of Rs.5 la....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ight to enjoy commission and restricted amenities and the possessor is absolute owner of the property in perpetuity and forever. Hence, it is clear that the appellant became purchaser of the apartment vide sale deed dated 6th November, 2007. The Silver Oak apartment had been purchased after the date of transfer of the original asset after a period of one year and therefore (ii) of proviso to section 54F(1) will not be applicable and prohibition mentioned in (ii) to proviso to section 54F will not be applicable. 6. Now we will consider the other apartment in Sobha Daisy. Copy of agreement dated 24th June, 2006 with Sobha Daisy is available at pages 108 to 110. In this agreement, M/s Sobha Innercity Technopolis Pvt. Ltd. is vendor party (i) and M/s Sobha Developers Ltd. is vendor party (ii). The other party is the appellant, who has been referred as purchaser. As per this agreement, vendor party (i) having a right on site, sold an undivided interest in land to the purchaser for the construction of an apartment. The construction of apartment was to be done by M/s Sobha Developers Ltd. i.e. vendor party No.(ii) on behalf of the appellant. Vendor party no.(i) i.e. M/s Sobha Inne....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the date of transfer of the original asset. Due to prohibition provided in section 54F(1), the capital gain allowed in the year of deduction u/s 54F is to be deemed to be income of the previous year in which residential house is purchased or constructed. This is clear from sub section 2 of section 54F. Though we have hold that section 54F will be applicable in the case of the assessee in respect of apartment in Sobha Daisy, however, in case it is finally held that proviso will be applicable then the capital gain is to be chargeable in the previous year in which residential house is made or constructed and not in the asst. year under consideration. 8. The learned AO, while not allowing the deduction u/s 54F, has observed that the assessee has not paid and has not deposited the net consideration in the capital gain account. Such an issue has been considered by the Bangalore Bench in the case of Nipun Mehrotra vs ACIT 297 ITR (AT) 110. It will be useful to reproduce the following conclusions drawn by this Bench:- "We have heard both the parties. Before dealing with the issue, it will be relevant to reproduce section 54F(4): "4. The amount of the net considerat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for a purpose. The legislative intention is that every part of the statute should be given effect. The Legislature is deemed not to waste its words or to say anything in vain and a construction which attributes redundancy to the Legislature will not be accepted except for compelling reasons. The apex court in Bhavnagar University vs Palitana Sugar Mill P Ltd. (2003) 2 SCC 111, held that it is the basic principle of construction of statute that statutory enactment must ordinarily be construed according to their plain meaning and no words should be added, altered or modified unless it is plainly necessary to do so to prevent a provision from being unintelligible, absurd, unreasonable, unworkable or totally irreconcilable with the rest of the statute, paragraphs 24 and 25 of the Bhavnagar University vs Palitana Sugar Mill P. Ltd. (20023) 2 SCC 111 read as follows (page 121):- "24. True meaning of a provision of law has to be determined on the basis of what it provides by its clear language, with due regard to the scheme of law. 25. Scope of the legislation on the intention of the Legislature cannot be enlarged when the language of the provision is plain and un....