2019 (1) TMI 1337

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s erred on facts in not and reckoning the date of advance of the sale of the landed property ( April 6, 2011) for the purposes of claim under section 54 F of the Income tax Act, as the date for counting the exemption period of one year provided under the law, which falls within one year of the date of purchase of another residential property (on April 9,2010) in the earlier financial year. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -20, New Delhi, has erred on facts that advance money has been received by the assessee from the property broker for validating an agreement for sale, is only security and not advance for sale of property, which actually resulted in a sale later, can not be co....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... assessee had two residential houses. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee filed revised computation and claimed exemption u/s. 54F on purchase of flat at CB-6A Munirka, New Delhi of Rs. 44,50,000/-. On the basis of revised computation filed, the AO noticed that the new asset should be purchased within one year from the date of sale of the capital asset, i.e., 25.05.2010, but here the assessee purchased the property at CB-6A Munirka New Delhi on 09.04.2010 which is beyond the period prescribed u/s. 54F for availing deduction. Accordingly, the AO disallowed the claim of assessee u/s. 54F and made addition of Rs. 44,50,000/- . In appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee made detailed written submissions and the ld. CIT(....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sessee is not applicable in the present case because it is based on different footings. 5. After hearing both the sides and perusing the entire material on record and the orders of the authorities below, we observe that the ld.CIT(A) has done a good reasoned order which reads as under : "4.3. I have carefully considered the assessment order and submissions thereof. Following facts have emerged; 1. The assessee is a half co-owner of a plot atC-1417, Palam Vihar, which was sold at Rs. 1,04,10,000/- (assessee share being Rs. 52,05,000) vide sale deed registered on 30th May, 2011. 2. That the assessee has purchased a residential flat at CB6A, Munirka, New Delhi on 9th April, 2010 vide sale deed dated 9th April 2010....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....erty on or after 30/05/2010. Appellant has purchased the flat on 09/04/2010, which is clearly beyond the period applicable under section 54F of the Act. The appellant has claimed that he has approached several brokers for the sale of the property and that one of such broker has credited the account of the appellant an amount of Rs. 5 lakh towards security deposit in lieu of future sale of this property and that the security deposit was received against this property on 06/04/2011. Therefore - the date of sale of the property should be treated as on 06/04/2011 and not the actual sale deed i.e 30/05/2011. The appellant's claim is not justified because of the following reasons; 1. That the money received by the appellant on 06/04/2011....