TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (8) TMI 859
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... have appreciated that the order of re-assessment(s) was passed out of time, invalid, passed without jurisdiction and not sustainable both on facts and in law. 3. The CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that there was no tangible/fresh materials available with the Assessing Officer warranting invocation of the provisions in section 147 of the Act and further ought to have appreciated that the change of opinion on the part of the Assessing Officer was wrong, erroneous, unjustified, incorrect and not sustainable in law. 4. The CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the reopening of the assessment based on the audit objection without independent application of mind on the part of the Assessing Officer would indicate the absence of 'reasons to believe' thus vitiating the initiation of the re-assessment proceedings in terms of section 147 of the Act. 5. The CIT (Appeals) went wrong in recording the findings in this regard from para 10 to para 15 of the impugned order without assigning proper reasons and justification. 6. The CIT (Appeals) erred in disallowing the claim of exemption u/s 54F of the Act in the computation of Long-Term Capital Gai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Gain of Rs.102.57 Lacs. To claim exemption u/s. 54 of the Act, the assessee entered into agreement of sale on 30-03-2012 with Mr. Vivek Grover and Mrs. Dhrithi Grover for purchase of Flat No.8, College Road, Chennai for a consideration of Rs.165 Lacs. However, upon enquiry, it was found that the property was not registered in the name of the assessee till date. The Ld. A.O opined that to claim exemption u/s. 54 of the Act, the assessee should have purchased the property through a registered sale deed. However, this was not done and the assessee entered into a mere agreement for sale only. 3.3 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Balbir Singh Maini (supra) discussed the legal impact of unregistered Joint Development Agreement. The Hon'ble Court held that fulfillment of conditions of Sec.53A of Transfer of Property Act itself was not enough to consider a transfer within the meaning of Sec. 2(47) of the Act. It was further held that after the commencement of amendment act, 2001, an unregistered agreement would have no effect in law for the purposes of Sec.53A. In short, there is no agreement in the eyes of law which could be enforced u/s 53A of the Transfer of Property ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ivered to the appellant assessee. It is also contended that the Agreement for sale was irrevocable. The appellant assessee has interpreted the provisions of section 2(47) of the Income Tax Act and section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act to define that through the impugned Agreement for sale, the appellant assessee had become 'owner' of the flat as envisaged u/s. 54F of the Act. It is also contended that for the purpose of section 54F, there is no requirement of registered Sale Deed. 17. On the other hand, the A.O has relied on the recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Balbir Maini, dated 04/10/2017 wherein the legal implication of unregistered Joint Development Agreement has been discussed in details. I have perused the impugned assessment order of the AO in the light of the above decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court and have found that the AO has very judiciously and correctly applied the ratio of this judgement to the present case of the assessee and has disallowed the claim of the assessee u/s 54F of the Act. I do not find any infirmity in the finding of the AO in this regard. 18. In the above referred decision of the Hon'....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....row compass. The basis facts are not in dispute. The only question to be decided on merits is whether the assessee could be granted deduction u/s 54 merely on the basis of unregistered Agreement to Sale couple with possession which never fructified into registered Sale Deed till date? 7. From the facts, it emerges that the assessee has earned Long- Term Capital Gains of Rs.102.19 Lacs against which the assessee has claimed deduction u/s 54 on the strength of agreement for sale for purchase of flat. The assessee is stated to have taken a possession of the same. However, it is undisputed fact that the agreement has not fructified into registered sale deed and the full ownership rights have not been acquired by the assessee. Pertinently, the agreement is unregistered document which is executed as early as on 30-03-2012. 8. The provisions of Sec.54 enable the assessee to claim deduction of Long-Term Capital gains provided the assessee, within specified period, purchases or construct a residential house. The term purchase, in our considered opinion, has to be absolute purchase since the object of the beneficial provision is to encourage investment in housing. An agreement to sale,....