2017 (1) TMI 1323

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....here was no mistake apparent and hence the order passed u/s 154 is bad & invalid. 2. On merits, the Ld CIT (A) was not justified in not following the decision(s) of this Hon‟ble Tribunal. 3. The Ld CIT (A) fell in error of law in not appreciating that on interpretation of the Conveyance Deed of August 2007, the „transfer‟ took place on receipt of the total sale consideration of the capital asset. 4. Without prejudice to the above, the Ld CIT (A) fell in error of law in not appreciating that the time period of six (6) months for making investment in bonds for exemption u/s 54EC, would commence from receipt of total consideration." 2. Before us, at the outset, Ld Counsel for the assessee briefed relevant facts of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....age 3 and mentioned that 22.1.2008 is the date of payment of Rs. 60,25,000/- out of Rs. 1.1 Crs of total payments. In this regard, Ld Counsel for the assessee argued that the balance payment is since paid only in January 2008, it is only on that day the purchaser got the rights on the property and therefore, the original claim of the assessee is proper. In this regard, Ld AR cited the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Janak Dulari Devi and Another vs. Kapildeo Rai and Another [2011] 6 SCC 555. Bringing our attention to para 13 in page 564 of the said judgment (supra), Ld Counsel for the assessee read out the following:- "13. Where the sale deed recites that on receipt of the total consideration by the vendor, the ....