TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (6) TMI 643
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to the builder and builder has not handed over the possession within the time limit prescribed under section 54F notwithstanding the fact that section being treated as beneficial provision, the exemption claimed by the assessee is disallowed since the initial agreement of construction itself spoke completion time being 31/12/2011 against available time of construction by 1/8/2010 and assessee had failed to satisfy the specific condition to get exemption"? Tax effect 1.61 crore. 2. We have heard Mr. E.I. Sanmathi, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant-Revenue. As appears from the record that the assessee along with his son had effected sale of certain equity shares which resulted in long term capital gain of Rs. 13,55,84,748/- ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g the whole of the price on 28-07.2007 itself. There is no case for the revenue that the construction itself was not started. Only grievance of the revenue is that the unit numbers have changed and the outer limit for completing the construction went beyond three years limit mentioned in Section 54F of the Act. In our opinion, none of these would disentitle the assessee from claiming the benefit u/s 54F of the Act. Their Lordship's in the case of Sri Sambandam Udaykumar (Supra) had held as under: "A reading of Section 54F of the Act, 1961, makes it very clear that if a capital gain arises from the transfer of any long term capital asset, not being a residential; house and the assessee has within the period of one year before or two years a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... favour of the assessee before the period stipulated, he cannot be denied the benefit of section 54F of the Act. Similarly, if he has invested the money in construction of a residential house, merely because the construction was not complete in all respects and it was not in fit condition to be occupied within the period under section 54F of the Act. The essence of the provision is whether the assessee who received capital gains has invested in a residential house. Once it is demonstrated that the consideration received on transfer has been invested either in purchasing a residential house or in construction of a residential house even though the transactions are not complete in all respects are required under the law, that would not disent....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r. He also relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in case of Giridhar Yadalam vs. Commissioner of Wealth Tax reported (2016) 65 Taxman.com 148(SC) and contended that, similar word was interpreted by the Apex Court and was found that the construction ought to have been completed. 7. In his submission, since the construction was not completed in the present case, the Tribunal ought not to have allowed the appeal and the matter may deserve consideration. 8. In the first aspects, we are not impressed by the submission that, since tax amount was less and the matter having been not carried before the Apex Court, the efficacy of the decision of this Court in Sambandham Udayakumar case referred supra would be lost so far as applying principle....