TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (6) TMI 958
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stantial questions of law:- "i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was justified in quashing the order passed by the PCIT u/s 263 of the IT Act, 1961 ignoring the fact that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue as the Assessing Officer failed to enquire on the applicability of provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) (ii) of the Act? ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was justified in holding that there was no lack of enquiry by the Assessing Officer but the PCIT had considered the order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue without assigning any reasons." The learned counse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....parties i.e. the buyer (assessee) and the seller (the builder) and bind the respective parties. The allotment letter provided detailed specification of the property, its identification and terms of the payment, providing possession of the bjected property in the stipulated period and many more. Evidently the seller (builder) has agreed to sale and the allottee buyer (assessee) has agreed to purchase the flat for an agreed price mentioned in the allotment letter. What is important is to gather the intention of the parties and not to go by the nomenclature. Thus, there being offer and acceptance by the competent parties for a lawful purpose with their free consent, we find that all the attributes of a lawful agreement are available as per pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and the new property was still under construction, the allotment letter issued by the builder mentions the flat number and specific details of the property-There is no evidence that the advance has been returned- Therefore, assesse can be said to have complied with the requirement of s. 54 and there is no reason to deny the claim of exemption under s. 54-CIT vs. Kuldeep Singh (2014) 270 CTR (Del) 561: (2014) 108 DTR (Del) 161 and Khemchand Fagwani vs. ITO (ITA No. 7876/Mum/2010, dt. 10th Sept., 2014) followed." We also draw strength from the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Kuldeep Singh (2014) 270 CTR 561 (Del), whereinthe Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that: "Section 54 of the Income-tax Act....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n amount exceeding Rs. 50,000/-. In other words, the pre amended law which was applicable up to A.Y. 2013-14 never contemplated such a situation and it was only in the amended law, specifically made applicable for and from A.Y. 2014 15 that any receipt of the immoveable property with inadequate consideration has been subjected to the provisions of S. 56(2)(vii)(b) but not before that. Hence, the applicability of the said provision in such cases, could not be insisted in the assessment years prior to a A.Y. 2014-15. Having said this, in this case, there was a valid and lawful agreement entered by the parties long back in A.Y. 2010-11 only, when the subject perty was transferred and substantial obligations were discharged. The law contained i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e the additions made under s. 56(2)(vii)(b)." Hence, we are not in agreement with the view taken by the ld. Pr.CIT holding the applicability of S. 56(2) (vii)(b)(ii) in the facts and circumstances of the case and therefore we hold that the assessment order, subjected to revision u/s 263, is not erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Therefore, considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order passed u/s 263 of the Act by the ld. Pr.CIT, is therefore, quashed. 9. Once, we quash the order passed U/s 263 of the Act, then in that eventuality, the other grounds raised by the assessee become infructuous and needs no adjudication." On consideration of the above, it is noted ....