TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (3) TMI 1014
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts by allowing exemption u/s 54F to the assessee whereas the assessee had not followed the restricted framed u/s 54F. 3. For these and such above other grounds as may be urged at the time of the hearing, the order of the learned CIT(Appeals) may be vacated and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 4. The appellant craves, leave to add, amend, alter or delete any of the above ground of appeal "'during the course of the appellant proceedings before the ITAT. 4. The brief facts of the case are that, during the year under consideration the assessee had declared income from long term capital gains of Rs. 7,52,311/- on sale of land at Fursungi, in the return of income. The Assessing Officer requisitioned the assessee to furnish the complete details of the sale transaction including the copy of purchase deed and also the details of deduction claimed under section 54 of the Act in respect of re-investment in residential property. On the perusal of details furnished by the assessee, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee along with his brother Shri C.A. Dhere sold the plot at Fursungi vide agreement to sell dated 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssee had entered into agreement for purchase of flats on 19.11.2004 and since majority of payments were made prior to one year before the date of sale of land i.e. 12.04.2006, the assessee was not entitled to the claim of deduction under section 54F of the Act. In reply, the assessee explained that due to his family needs, he had purchased adjacent flats, which had a single entry and as such, he was entitled to the claim of deduction under section 54F of the Act. The assessee also explained that though the agreement for purchase of the flats was executed on 19.11.2004, the possession for the flats was obtained only in April, 2007 and date of possession was decisive under the provisions of I.T. Act. The Assessing Officer rejected both the pleas of the assessee since majority payments were made between the period 27.09.2004 to 03.11.2004 and also the assessee had procured housing loan from COSMOS Bank for purchase of the said properties and sum of Rs. 43,65,000/- was disbursed on 31.01.2005 itself and also rejected the plea of the assessee that it had joined two flats, held the assessee not to be entitled to the claim of deduction under section 54F of the Act at Rs. 50,91,020/-. 5. B....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sment year, although the sale agreement was registered with the builder on 19.11.2004. The occupancy certificate of PMC which was government authority, was referred to by the CIT(A). Further, reliance was placed on the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Beena K. Jain reported in 271 ITR 263 (Bom), wherein it has been held that the date of possession of new residential premises rather than the date of sale agreement and date of registration should be considered for determining the allowability of exemption under section 54F of the Act. In view thereof, the CIT(A) held that the exemption under section 54F of the Act could not be denied to the assessee. 6. The next observation of the Assessing Officer that the assessee had purchased two independent flats vide two separate sale deeds and hence, not entitled to the exemption under section 54F of the Act was rejected because of various case laws on the issue. The CIT(A) placed reliance on the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in CIT Vs. D.Ananda Basappa reported in 309 ITR 329 (Kar), against which SLP filed by the department had been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 10.08.2009. The C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of one year before or two years after the date on which transfer took place, purchased or has within period of three years after the date, constructed one residential house i.e. a new asset, then the capital gains arising on the sale of original asset, shall be set off against the cost of purchase / construction of the new asset as provided in the section itself. The proviso provides that the provisions of the said sub-section shall not apply where the assessee owns more than one residential house, other than the new asset, on the date of original asset or purchase any residential house other than the new asset within a period of one year after the date of transfer of original asset or constructs any residential house other than the new asset within a period of three years after the date of transfer of original asset; and the income from such residential house other than the one owned by the assessee on the date of transfer of original asset, is chargeable to tax under the head 'income from property'. Further, provisions are provided under section 54F of the Act in relation to the transfer of new assets which are not relevant for the issue raised before us hence, we restrict oursel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fficer was of the view that the assessee was not entitled to the claim of deduction under section 54F of the Act and the same was denied to the assessee. However, the CIT(A) considered the plea of the assessee before the Assessing Officer which is in the form of written submissions which is incorporated at pages 8 and 9 of the assessment order. In addition to the reasons for acquisition of two independent 9 flats being one flat, the next contention of the assessee was vis-à-vis the date of purchase of the property and it was admitted by the assessee that the agreements for purchase of flats though were executed on 19.11.2004, but the possession was obtained in April, 2007 in respect of which, the assessee furnished the copies of occupancy certificate issued by PMC in respect of the impugned flats dated 18.03.2008 and the first bill of MSEB dated 14.08.2007 in respect of combined flats i.e. flat Nos.304A and 304B. All these documents, the assessee claims to have filed before the Assessing Officer, but the CIT(A) confronted the same to the Assessing Officer in appellate proceedings and remand report was received from the Assessing Officer. In the remand report, the Assessing O....