2015 (3) TMI 48

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ing in this appeal is the maintainability or otherwise in law of the addition in the sum of Rs. 35,14,230/- made by the Assessing Officer (A.O.) on account of alleged investment in a residential flat purchased by the assessee, since deleted by the ld. CIT(A), so that the Revenue is in appeal. 3. It would be relevant to briefly recount the facts of the case. The assessee purchased a Flat (bearing no. 301, Wing B, Karishma Apartments, Jogeshwari (W), Mumbai) during 1999, paying a sum of Rs. 4 lacs in the year of allotment itself. The sale agreement in its respect, as well as its registration, however, was in the year 2008; the relevant dates being 11.02.2008 and 03.05.2008 respectively. The agreement being registered during financial year (f....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... lakhs, being at Rs. 4 lakhs and 3 lakhs toward purchase of Flat B/301 and Flat B/302 respectively in the said building in the name of the assessee and his wife, which was during the period from 5.11.1999 to 31.1.2001, i.e., during the previous years relevant to the A.Ys. 2000-01 & 2001-02. The possession of flat was given during the year 2000, as confirmed by the housing society, so that there was nothing to impugn the possession letter dated 15.7.2000 pursuant to letter of allotment dated 6.12.1999. Merely because the registration of agreement and, thus, the property, had been delayed by about eight years, would not imply that the purchase had not occurred, or otherwise entitle the Revenue to substitute the purchase cost. The AO had, in e....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....there is nothing to show that the purchase cost exceeded the stated consideration of Rs. 4 lakhs, or that any part thereof, whatever be its value, was paid during the relevant year, or that it (the said year) witnessed anything apart from the execution of the agreement and its registration. Deferring the date of possession to the year 2003, i.e., after the date of occupancy certificate, would not also advance the Revenue's case, which, as made out, is without any credible evidence or legal basis. So, however, we observe that the Revenue has per its Ground No. 2, referred to a statement by the builder dated 26.12.2011, charging the first appellate authority to have proceeded by ignoring the facts brought out thereby. The same, which may wel....