TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (3) TMI 161
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Y. 2011-12. The revenue assailing the order of the CIT(A) has raised before us the following grounds of appeal: " 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in granting exemption u/s 54 when the legal title in the property was not passed or transferred to the assessee within a period of two years from the date of sale of the residential flat. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in granting exemption u/s 54 even though the assessee could not produce any evidence of possession of the residential f lat even af ter 5 years of the sale of the old flat, i.e. up to the passing of the appellate order. 3. The Appellant prays that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessee was not put into possession of the new residential flat viz. B-702, Windsor Grande Residences, Goregaon West, Mumbai, due to an internal dispute between the aforesaid company and its director. The A.O holding a conviction that as the assessee had not received the possession of the residential flat within the stipulated period of 2 years, therefore, she was not eligible for claim of exemption under Sec.54 of the IT Act. On the basis of his aforesaid observations the A.O disallowed the claim of exemption raised by the assessee under Sec.54 and assessed her total income at Rs. 2,94,24,530/-. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) after deliberating at length on the contentions advanced ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e the Appellant had entered into an agreement by virtue of which the payments for the purchase of residential property are made to the builder within two years for purchase of property, the Appellant was entitled to claim exemption u/s 54, even when legal title in property was not passed or transferred to Appellant within a period of two years from date of sale of the residential flat. Further the Appellant submitted that it has duly made the investment by making payments to the builder for acquisition of new residential f lat. The Appellant intended to make the payments to the builder to acquire the residential property. The payments were made by the Appellant to the builder to acquire the right of purchase in the residential flat. T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....The ld. Departmental Representative (for short 'D.R') at the very outset of the hearing of the appeal submitted that as the assessee was not put into the possession of the new residential flat, therefore, the A.O had rightly concluded that she was not eligible for exemption under Sec. 54 of the IT Act. The ld. D.R relied on the order passed by the A.O and submitted that the CIT(A) by misconceiving the facts and the settled position of law had erred in dislodging the well reasoned order passed by the A.O. 6. Per contra, the ld. Authorized Representative (for short 'A.R') for the assessee relied on the order passed by the CIT(A). It was submitted by the ld. A.R that Sec. 54 of the IT Act envisaged investment by an assessee towards purch....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Admittedly, the assessee had sold a residential house on 14.11.2011 for a consideration of Rs. 2,40,00,000/-. The LTCG of Rs. 2,21,50,000/- worked out on the sale of the aforementioned property was claimed as exempt by the assessee under Sec. 54 for the reason that she had purchased a new residential house i.e B-702, Windsor Grande Residences, Goregaon West, Mumbai, vide a registered agreement dated 06.06.2012 for a consideration of Rs. 4,85,41,660/-. On a perusal of the records it stands revealed that the assessee till the 'due date' of filing of her return of income had made a payment of Rs. 3,62,34,230/- to the builder, while for the balance amount of Rs. 92,78,100/- was paid subsequently. It is a matter of fact discernible from the orde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... period envisaged under Sec.54, but had not taken possession of the same within the said period, he would for the said reason stand disentitled for claim of exemption under the said statutory provision. We are of a strong conviction that as the assessee in the case before us had purchased the new residential house within the time period stipulated in Sec.54 of the IT Act i.e within a period of two years after the date on which the old residential hose had been transferred, thus she was duly entitled for claim of exemption under the said statutory provision. In our considered view the mere fact that the assessee after purchasing the property was either not put into the possession of the same by the seller or had not taken the possession o....