TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 1959
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2. The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: "1. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld.CIT(A) is right in admitting additional evidences such as purchase agreement without providing due opportunity to the AO of examining the same и/г 46A?" 2." Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld.CIT(A) is right in allowing the deduction u/s 54 without properly evidencing in the order that all the essential ingredients of the Section have been fulfilled?" 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld.CIT(A) is right in allowing the deduction u/s 54 without specifically mentioning in the order that assessee has purchased a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lting in long capital gains of Rs. 6,42,30,615/-. The assessee had entered an agreement to purchase one residential property at Breach Candy, Mumbai for a sum of Rs. 38,63,66,138/- during FY 2014-15. A loan of Rs. 26,05,00,000/- was also taken from the Union Bank of India for the purchase of this property and the entire sale consideration of Rs. 81,24,00,000/- received on the sale of the property at Cuffe Parade, Mumbai was paid against the said outstanding loan. The assessee claimed deduction for this amount u/s 54 on the ground that the repayment towards the outstanding housing loan to acquire a new house is actually the sum spent to acquire the new property, the possession of which was handed over to the assessee on 29.02.2016. After ver....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... a new property and the possession was granted, subsequently, the relevant date for the grant of deduction u/s 54 would be the date of possession. In this case, on the date of possession (29.02.2016) is within two years from the date of the sale of the original asset (12.01.2016), the assessee's claim of deduction u/s 54 has to be allowed. 8. Ld. DR, on the other hand, has argued that no opportunity was given by Ld. CIT(A) to the AO before admitting the additional evidence. He has further submitted that from the order of Ld. CIT(A), it is not clear as to whether the assessee has purchased or constructed a new resident house within the time limit under the law and has also argued that the date of hand over the possession is not the date o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed time period of 'one year prior and 2 years after the sale of original asset'. It is the contention of the assessee that even though the new asset had been booked and the agreement to purchase was entered on 21-7-2014, the said asset was under construction and the occupancy certificate was received by the developer/builder only on 16-9-2015. The possession was given to the assessee on 16-11-2015 and both these dates fall within the prescribed period as above. b. Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Smt. Beena K. Jain [1994] 75 Taxman 145/[1996] 217 ITR 363 has dealt with this issue. The facts of the case of Smt. Beena Jain are similar to the assessee's case and the Hon'ble Bombay High Court case has....