2024 (11) TMI 22

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e shall take up the Revenue's appeal. ITA No. 268/Viz/2024 (AY 2017-18) (By Revenue) 2. At the outset, is noticed from the record that the Revenue has filed the appeal before the Tribunal with a delay of 24 days. With respect to belated filing of the appeal, the Revenue has filed petition for condonation of delay along with the affidavit and the relevant paras of the affidavit is extracted herein below for reference: " ......  ........ 4. I submit that I have taken charge as the ACIT, Circle-1(1), Vijayawada on 09/05/2024. As a new joinee, it has taken some time for the allocation of RSA token and role allocation on the ITBA portal for me. As such there was an inadvertent delay in accessing the information related to the case. Further, it has taken some time to appraise myself on the facts of the case and perusal of the case history for taking necessary action in the instant case. 5. That in view of the above reasons, there is a delay of 23 days in filing the appeal. It is respectfully submitted that the delay in filing the appeal is neither wilful nor deliberate but for the reasons stated herein above. It is submitted that there ar....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....grounds of appeal: "1. The Ld. CIT(a) has erred in not considering the fact that the AO during the course of assessment proceedings has obtained confirmation from the sellers Sri Selvarathanam and S. Jayalakshmi vide letter dated 19/12/2019 that the land was sold, possession was handed over and registered on 17/12/2019. 2. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in considering the date of possession as 14/11/2016 based on the sale agreement and payment of sale consideration, which is not acceptable and is beyond the fact that the transfer of new property was effectively conveyed on the date of registration of the sale deed ie 17/12/2019. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the fact that the purchase of the new asset ie., residential property at Chennai, as well as its possession has actually taken place on the date of registration ie 17/12/2019. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred by confirming himself to the fact that the assessee has offered rental income of Rs. 60,000/- for 3 months from the property in question for income through her ROI for the AY 2017-18 without considering any documentary proofs in support of the assessee's claim like the rental agreement. He....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....16. The Ld. DR further submitted that the Ld. AO has rightly denied the exemption claimed by the assessee U/s. 54F of the Act by observing that the assessee had purchased the property on 17/12/2019 out of the capital gains arising from the sale of the property / vacant land which was occurred in the month of October / November, 2016. Considering the time duration between the sale of the property / vacant land and purchase of the house property by the assessee, ie., much after 24 months of the stipulated period as prescribed in the Act, the Ld. AO has rightly denied the exemption claimed by the assessee U/s. 54F of the Act. The Ld. DR further submitted that while allowing assessee's claim, the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC observed that the assessee has paid the entire consideration for purchase of the house property much prior to the date of registration of the property ie., 17/12/2019 and therefore it can be treated as the total sale consideration was paid within the stipulated time as allowed U/s.54F of the Act. The Ld. DR therefore submitted that the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC has not considered the fact of date of registration of the property is beyond the stipulated time and also the fact that the ass....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Balraj vs. CIT [2002] 254 ITR 22 (Delhi); the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sambandam Udaykumar [2012] 345 ITR 389 (Karnataka) as well as the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Smt. Suryakantham Seelam vs. ITO, Ward-5(2), Visakhapatnam in ITA No. 563/Viz/2013, dated 18/08/2017. 8. We have heard both the sides and perused the material available on record as well as the orders of the Ld. Revenue Authorities. It is an admitted fact that assessee has sold the property / vacant plots during October / November, 2016. It is also an admitted fact that the assessee has made the entire payments for the house property purchased within the period of two years from the date of sale of the immovable property. It is also a fact that the house property was registered on 17/12/2019 and therefore there was a time gap of more than 24 months between the date of transfer of capital asset and the date of purchase of the new house property and denied exemption U/s. 54F of the Act. The only grievance of the Ld. AO is that the assessee has become the owner of the newly purchased house property only on 17/12/2....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... case of Balraj vs. CIT [2002] 254 ITR 22 (Delhi); the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sambandam Udaykumar [2012] 345 ITR 389 (Karnataka) as well as the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Smt. Suryakantham Seelam vs. ITO, Ward-5(2), Visakhapatnam in ITA No. 563/Viz/2013, dated 18/08/2017. So far as the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court is concerned, it was observed that "for the purpose of attracting the provisions of section 54, it is not necessary that the assessee should become the owner of the property". Further, the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sambandam Udaykumar is concerned has held that "the condition precedent for claiming benefit under the said provision is the capital gain realized from the sale of capital asset should have been parted by the assessee and invested either in purchasing a residential house or in constructing a residential house. If after making the entire payment, merely because a registered sale deed had not been executed and registered in favour of the assessee before the period stipulated it cannot be denied the benefit of section 54F of the Act". As well, this Tribunal in the case....