ITO, Ward-32(4), New Delhi V. Swati Oberoi, New Delhi

ITA 4150/DEL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9455 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-07-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 31-05-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Capital asset; Depreciation; Set aside; Capital Gains
• Section: 54F; 54EC; 48

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH B : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE) ITA NO.4150/DEL./2018 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2015-16) ITO, WARD 32 (4), VS. SMT. SWATI OBEROI, NEW DELHI. B-1/72, SAFDARJUNG ENCLAVE, NEW DELHI 110 029. (PAN : AFEPM5642R) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SHRI MAHESH THAKUR, SENIOR DR DATE OF HEARING : 28,07.2021 DATE OF ORDER : 30.07.2021 O R D E R PER KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER : APPELLANT, ITO, WARD 32 (4), NEW DELHI (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE REVENUE) BY FILING THE PRESENT APPEAL S OUGHT TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 23.03.2018 PASSED BY THE C OMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) - 11, DELHI QUA THE ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2015-16 ON THE GROUNDS INTER ALIA THAT :- 1. WHETHER THE LD. CIT (A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELET ING THE ADDITION LEVIED BY THE AO DISALLOWING THE DEDUCTION U/S 54F OF THE ACT DISREGARDING THE FACTS OF THE CASE. ITA NO.4150/DEL./2018 2 2. WHETHER THE LD. CIT (A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETIN G THE ADDITION LEVIED BY THE AO DISALLOWING THE DEDUCTION U/S 54F OF THE ACT SINCE PRIMARY REQUIREMENTS NECESSITATING T RANSFER UNDER SEC 53A OF TRANSFER OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY ACT ARE NOT SATISFIED. 3. WHETHER THE LD. CIT (A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETI NG THE ADDITION LEVIED BY THE AO DISALLOWING THE DEDUCTION US 54F OF THE ACT DISREGARDING THE REPORT OF INSPECTOR WHEREI N IT HAS BEEN REPORTED THAT THE PROPERTY IN ISSUE WAS IN THE POSSESSION OF SMT. PURNIMA MEHRA. 2. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS NECESSARY FOR ADJUDICAT ION OF THE CONTROVERSY AT HAND ARE : ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME OF RS.15,06,65/- WHICH WAS SUBJECTED TO SCRUTINY. ASS ESSING OFFICER (AO) NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD 50% SHARE I N A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY OF RS.3.5 CRORES AND HAS SHOWN LONG TERM C APITAL GAIN (LTCG) OF RS.3,15,35,564/- IN THE RETURN OF INCOME OUT OF WHICH ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54EC OF TH E INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT THE ACT) TO THE TUNE OF RS. 49,55,589/- AND DEDUCTION U/S 54F OF THE ACT FOR RS.2,65,79,975/-. ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO HAVE INVESTED AN AMOUNT OF RS.2,65,79,97 5/- FOR PURCHASING 2/3 RD SHARE IN A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE I.E. VILLA NO.V-2/2, JAYPEE GREENS, D-BLOCK, SURAJPUR-KASNA ROAD, GREATE R NOIDA (U.P.) FROM HER PARENTS AND THE BALANCE 1/3 RD SHARE WAS ALREADY OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE SINCE 2008. AO PROCEEDED TO DISALLOW DEDUCTIONS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S 54F OF THE A CT ON FAILURE OF THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH SALE DEED OF THE PROPERTY A ND THEREBY MADE ITA NO.4150/DEL./2018 3 AN ADDITION OF RS.2,65,79,975/- UNDER THE HEAD INC OME FROM CAPITAL GAINS. 3. ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD. CIT ( A) BY WAY OF FILING APPEAL WHO HAS DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO BY PARTLY ALLOWING THE SAME. FEELING AGGRIEVED, THE R EVENUE HAS COME UP BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL BY WAY OF FILING THE PR ESENT APPEAL. 4. ASSESSEE HAS NOT PREFERRED TO PUT IN APPEARANCE DES PITE ISSUANCE OF THE NOTICE AND CONSEQUENTLY, WE PROCEED ED TO DECIDE THE PRESENT APPEAL WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF THE LD. D R AS WELL AS ON THE BASIS OF DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE ON THE FILE. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIV E FOR THE REVENUE TO THE APPEAL, GONE THROUGH THE DOCUMENTS R ELIED UPON AND ORDERS PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN T HE LIGHT OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 6. UNDISPUTEDLY, ASSESSEE HAS SOLD 50% SHARE IN A C OMMERCIAL PROPERTY FOR A SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.3.5 CRORES AND HAS SHOWN LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS.3,15,35,564/- IN ITS R ETURN OF INCOME AND CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/SS 54EC AND 54F OF THE ACT. IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT DEDUCTION U/S 54F CLAIMED BY THE AS SESSEE TO THE TUNE OF RS.2,65,79,975/- HAS BEEN DISALLOWED BY THE AO ON THE SOLE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROVE REGIST ERED SALE DEED QUA 2/3 RD SHARE CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN PURCHASED BY HER IN THE HOUSE ITA NO.4150/DEL./2018 4 PROPERTY OUT OF WHICH 1/3 RD SHARE IS ALREADY OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE SINCE 2008 BY WAY OF CONVEYANCE DEED BETWEEN THE AS SESSEE AND BUILDER ALONG WITH HER PARENTS. IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT ASSESSEE HAS BROUGHT ON RECORD AGREEMENT TO SELL, G ENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY AND POSSESSION LETTER DATED 19.03.2015 ALONG WITH DETAIL OF PAYMENT MADE TO HER PARENTS FOR PURCHASE OF PROPERTY. 7. AO DISALLOWED THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/S 54F OF T HE ACT ON THE GROUND THAT TRANSFER OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY I.E. HOUSE PROPERTY QUA WHICH DEDUCTION HAS BEEN CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSE E, IS COMPLETE ONLY BY WAY OF REGISTERED SALE DEED. 8. IN THE BACKDROP OF THE AFORESAID FACTS AND CIRCU MSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE SOLE QUESTION ARISES FOR DETERMINATIO N IN THIS CASE IS:- AS TO WHETHER DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE U/ S 54F OF THE ACT FOR THE INVESTMENT MADE IN THE HOUSE PROPERTY I S ALLOWABLE ONLY AFTER REGISTRATION OF SALE DEED IN FAVOUR OF T HE ASSESSEE/CLAIMANT? 9. LD. CIT (A) THRASHED AND DECIDED THIS ISSUE IN F AVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY RELYING UPON THE DECISIONS OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT & HONBLE HIGH COURTS IN THE CASES OF CIT VS. BALBIR SINGH MAINI (SUPREME COURT-2017-LL-1004-1 DATED 04.01.2017, SANJEEV LAL VS. CIT (CHANDIGARH) (SUPRE ME COURT- 2014-LL-0701-17 DATED 01.07.2014, NARINDER SINGH VS . DCIT CIRCLE, SANGRUR (P&U HC) 2016-LL-0122-213 DATED ITA NO.4150/DEL./2018 5 22.01.2016, CIT VS. RAM GOPAL (DELHI HC) 2015-LL- 0209-2 DATED 09.02.2015, PR. CIT-1, CHANDIGARH VS. MUKHIT AR KAUR (P&H HC) 2017-LL-1114-11 DATED 14.11.2017 & PR. C IT, JALANDHAR-1 VS. RANJIT KAUR (P&H HC) 2017-LL-0502 -36 DATED 14.11.2017 . 10. WHEN WE EXAMINE THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY TH E LD. CIT(A) IN THE LIGHT OF THE UNDISPUTED FACTS, THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED 2/3 RD SHARE OF THE CONSTRUCTED VILLA IN QUESTION FROM HE R PARENTS, 1/3 RD SHARE OF WHICH WAS ORIGINALLY PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE IN MARCH 2008; THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DULY PROVED DETAILS OF PAYMENT MADE BY HER TO THE VENDEE/HER PARENTS QU A THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION; AND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO PROVED ON FILE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE PROPERTY ALONG WITH ELECTRICITY A ND WATER BILLS TO PROVE HER POSSESSION OVER THE PROPERTY, IN OUR CONS IDERED VIEW FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES AND FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE CONSTRUED AS OWNER OF THE PROPERTY. 11. IDENTICAL ISSUE, AS TO WHETHER ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO DEPRECIATION IN RESPECT OF HOUSE SALE IN RESPECT OF WHICH ASSESSEE HAD NOT OBTAINED A DEED OF CONVEYANCE FROM THE VEND OR ALTHOUGH IT HAD TAKEN POSSESSION WHO MADE PART PAYMENT OF THE C ONSIDERATION, HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF ITA NO.4150/DEL./2018 6 MYSORE MINERALS LTD. VS. CIT (1999) 239 ITR 775 (SC ) BY RETURNING FOLLOWING FINDINGS :- SECTION 32 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, CONFERS A BENEFIT ON THE ASSESSEE. THE PROVISION SHOULD BE SO INTERPR ETED AND THE WORDS USED THEREIN SHOULD BE ASSIGNED SUCH MEANING AS WOULD ENABLE THE ASSESSEE TO SECURE THE BENEFIT INTENDED TO BE GIVEN BY THE LEGISLATURE TO THE ASSESSEE. IT IS ALSO WELL-SE TTLED THAT WHERE THERE ARE TWO POSSIBLE INTERPRETATIONS OF A TAXING PROVISION THE ONE WHICH IS FAVOURABLE TO THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE P REFERRED. SECTION 32 OF THE ACT ALLOWS CERTAIN DEDUCTIONS, ON E OF THEM BEING DEPRECIATION OF BUILDINGS, ETC., OWNED B Y THE ASSESSEE AND USED FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE BUSINESS OR PROFES SION. THE TERMS 'OWN', 'OWNERSHIP' AND 'OWNED' ARE GENERIC AN D RELATIVE TERMS. THEY HAVE A WIDE AND ALSO A NARROW CONNOTATION. THE MEANING WOULD DEPEND ON THE CONTEXT IN WHICH TH E TERMS ARE USED. CIT V. PODDAR CEMENT PVT. LTD. [1997]226 ITR 625 (SC), IS A CASE UNDER THE INCOME-TAX ACT AND HAS TO BE TAKEN AS A TREND- SETTER IN THE CONCEPT OF OWNERSHIP. ASSISTANCE FROM THE LAW LAID DOWN THEREIN CAN BE TAKEN FOR FINDING OUT THE MEANI NG OF THE TERM 'OWNED' AS OCCURRING IN SECTION 32(1) OF THE A CT. THE TERM OWNED AS OCCURRING IN SECTION 32(1) OF THE INCOME-T AX ACT MUST BE ASSIGNED A WIDER MEANING. ANYONE IN POSSESSION O F PROPERTY IN HIS OWN TITLE EXERCISING SUCH DOMINION OVER THE PROPERTY AS WOULD ENABLE OTHERS BEING EXCLUDED THEREFROM AND HA VING THE RIGHT TO USE AND OCCUPY THE PROPERTY AND/OR TO ENJO Y ITS USUFRUCT IN HIS OWN RIGHT WOULD BE THE OWNER OF THE BUILDING THOUGH A FORMAL DEED OF TITLE MAY NOT HAVE BEEN EXECUTED AND REGISTERED AS CONTEMPLATED BY THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, THE R EGISTRATION ACT, ETC. 'BUILDING OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE', THE EXP RESSION AS OCCURRING IN SECTION 32(1) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, M EANS THE PERSON WHO HAVING ACQUIRED POSSESSION OVER THE BUIL DING IN HIS OWN RIGHT USES THE SAME FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE BUS INESS OR PROFESSION THOUGH A LEGAL TITLE HAS NOT BEEN CONVEY ED TO HIM CONSISTENTLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF LAWS SUCH AS THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT AND THE REGISTRATION ACT, ETC. GENE RALLY SPEAKING DEPRECIATION IS AN ALLOWANCE FOR THE DIMINUTION IN THE VALUE DUE TO WEAR AND TEAR OF A CAPITAL ASSET EMPLOYED BY AN ASSESSEE IN HIS BUSINESS. THE VERY CONCEPT OF DEPRECIATION SUGGESTS THAT THE TAX BENEFIT ON ACCOUNT OF DEPRECIATION LEGITIMATELY BEL ONGS TO ONE WHO HAS INVESTED IN THE CAPITAL ASSET AND IS UTILIS ING THE CAPITAL ASSET AND THEREBY LOSING GRADUALLY THE INVESTMENT C AUSED BY WEAR AND TEAR, AND WOULD NEED TO REPLACE THE SAME BY HAV ING LOST ITS VALUE FULLY OVER A PERIOD OF TIME. IT IS WELL SETT LED THAT THERE CANNOT BE TWO OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY SIMULTANEOUSLY AND IN THE SAME SENSE OF THE TERM. THE INTENTION OF THE LEGISL ATURE IN ENACTING SECTION 32 OF THE ACT WOULD BE BEST FULFIL LED BY ALLOWING ITA NO.4150/DEL./2018 7 DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF DEPRECIATION TO THE PERSON IN WHOM FOR THE TIME-BEING VESTS THE DOMINION OVER THE BUILDING AND WHO IS ENTITLED TO USE IT IN HIS OWN RIGHT AND IS USING TH E SAME FOR THE PURPOSES OF HIS BUSINESS OR PROFESSION. ASSIGNING A NY DIFFERENT MEANING WOULD NOT SUBSERVE THE LEGISLATIVE INTENT. THE ASSESSEE WAS A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY. DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1981-82 (ACCOUNTING YEAR ENDING ON MARCH 31, 1981), THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED FOR THE USE OF IT S STAFF SEVEN LOW INCOME GROUP HOUSES FROM THE HOUSING BOARD. THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE PART PAYMENT AND WAS IN TURN GIVEN ALLOTME NT OF THE HOUSES FOLLOWED BY DELIVERY OF POSSESSION BY THE HO USING BOARD. THE ACTUAL DEED OF CONVEYANCE WAS NOT YET EXECUTED BY THE HOUSING BOARD IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESS EE MADE A CLAIM UNDER SECTION 32 OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF DEP RECIATION OF BUILDINGS USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE BUSINESS OF T HE ASSESSEE. THE CLAIM WAS REJECTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. T HIS WAS UPHELD BY THE TRIBUNAL AND THE HIGH COURT. ON APPEA L TO THE SUPREME COURT: HELD, REVERSING THE JUDGMENT OF THE HIGH COURT, THA T THE FINDING OF FACT ARRIVED AT IN THE CASE AT HAND WAS THAT THOUGH A DOCUMENT OF TITLE WAS NOT EXECUTED BY THE HOUSING B OARD IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, THE HOUSES WERE ALLOTTED TO THE ASSESSEE BY THE HOUSING BOARD, PART PAYMENT RECEIVED AND POSSES SION DELIVERED SO AS TO CONFER DOMINION OVER THE PROPERT Y ON THE ASSESSEE WHEREAFTER THE ASSESSEE HAD IN ITS OWN RIG HT ALLOTTED THE QUARTERS TO THE STAFF AND THEY WERE BEING ACTUALLY USED BY THE STAFF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED T O DEPRECIATION IN RESPECT OF THE SEVEN HOUSES IN RESPECT OF WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT OBTAINED A DEED OF CONVEYANCE FROM THE VENDOR A LTHOUGH IT HAD TAKEN POSSESSION AND MADE PART PAYMENT OF THE CONSIDERATION. 12. COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN CASE OF CHARANJ IT SINGH ATWAL AND ORS. VS. ITO IN ITA NO.276/CHD/2012 ALSO DEALT WITH THE IDENTICAL ISSUE AND DECIDED THE SAME IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE LIGHT OF THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED U /S 2(47)(V)(VI) OF THE ACT AS WELL AS U/S 53 OF THE TRANSFER OF PROPER TY ACT BY FOLLOWING THE LAW LAID DOWN BY HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE ITA NO.4150/DEL./2018 8 OF SURANA STEEL VS. DCIT 237 ITR 777 (SC) BY RETURNING FOLLOWING FINDINGS :- 70. A PLAIN READING OF THE ABOVE PROVISION SHOWS THAT IT PROVIDES A SAFETY MEASURE OR A SHIELD IN THE HANDS OF THE TR ANSFEREE TO PROTECT THE POSSESS ION OF ANY PROPERTY WHICH HAS BEEN GIVE N BY THE TRANSFEROR AS LAWFUL POSSESSION UNDER A PARTICULAR AGREEMENT OF SALE. THIS POSITION OF LAW WAS INCORPORATED IN THE DEFINITION OF TRANSFER BY INSERTION OF CLAUSES (V) & (VI) IN SE CTION 2(47) OF THE ACT. IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT CLAUSE (V) USES T HE EXPRESSION CONTRACT OF THE NATURE REFERRED TO IN SECTION 53A OF T.P. ACT, THEREFORE, CLEARLY THE IDEA IS THAT AN AGREEMENT WH ICH PROVIDES SOME DEFENSE IN THE HANDS OF TRANSFEREE WAS INCORPORATED UNDER THE DEFINITION OF TRANSFER IN THE INCOME TAX ACT . NO W ORIGINALLY SECTION 53A OF T.P. ACT PROVIDED THAT EVEN IF THE CONTRACT THOUGH REQUIRED TO BE REGISTERED HAS NOT BEEN REGISTERED, WHICH MEANS THE RIGHT OF DEFENDING THE POSSESS ION WAS AVAILABLE EV EN IF THE CONTRACT WAS NOT REGISTERED BUT BY AMENDMENT ACT 48 OF 2001, THE EXPRESSION THOUGH REQUIRED TO BE REGISTERED HAS NOT BEEN REGI STERED , HAS BEEN OMITTED WHICH MEANS FOR THE PURPOSE OF POSSESS ION U/S 53A OF T.P. ACT, A PERSON HAS TO PROVE THAT POSSESSION HAS BEEN GIVEN UNDER A REGISTERED AGREEMENT. IN OTHER WORDS, NOW U/S 53A OF T.P. ACT, THE AGREEMENT REFERRED IS REQUIRED TO BE REGISTERED. TH IS REQUIREMENT CANNOT BE READ IN CLAUSE (V) OF SECTION 2(47) BECAU SE THAT REFERS ONLY TO THE CONTRACT OF THE NATURE OF SECTION 53A OF T.P . ACT WITHOUT GOING INTO THE CONTROVERSY WHETHER SUCH AGREEMENT I S REQUIRED TO BE REGISTERED OR NOT . THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSE E HAD REFERRED TO THE DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE O F SURANA STEEL S V DCIT 237 ITR 777 (SC) FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT WH EN A SEC T ION OF A PARTICULAR STATUTE IS INTRODUCED INTO ANOTHER ACT IT MUST BE READ IN THE SAME SENSE AS IT BORE IN THE ORIGINAL ACT .. .. 73. IN CASE OF CLAUSE (V) TO SECTION 2(47), CLEARLY THE EXPRESSION USED IS CONTRACT OF THE NATURE REFERRED TO IN SECT ION 53A OF T.P. ACT, WHICH MEANS IT IS NOT A CASE OF INCORPORATION OF ONE PIECE OF LEGISLATION INTO ANOTHER PIECE OF LEGISLATION. IF T HAT WAS THE INTENTION OF THE PARLIAMENT, OBVIOUSLY CLAUSE ( V) WOULD CONT AIN THE EXPRESSION CONTRACT AS DEFINED UNDER SECTION 53A O F TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, 1882. FURTHER, IT IS SETTLED POSITIO N OF LAW THAT ANY INTERPRETATION WHICH COULD RENDER A PARTICULAR PROV ISION REDUNDANT SHOULD BE AVOIDED. IF THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. COU NSEL WAS TO BE ACCEPTED, OBVIOUSLY THE PROVISIONS OF CLAUSE (V) OF SECTION 2(47) OF THE ACT WOULD BECOME REDUNDANT IN THE SENSE THAT RE GISTRATION OF AGREEMENT WOULD AGAIN BE MADE COMPULSORY BUT SINCE PROPERTIES WERE BEING SOLD IN THE MARKET ON POWER OF ATTORNEY BASIS THROUGH UNREGISTERED AGREEMENTS WHICH WOULD MAKE THIS PROVI SION REDUNDANT. 74. THUS, IT IS CLEAR THAT NON REGISTRATION OF AGRE EMENT CANNOT LEAD TO THE CONCLUSION THAT PROVISION OF SECTION 2( 47) (V) IS NOT ITA NO.4150/DEL./2018 9 APPLICABLE. SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY ITAT COC HIN BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN CASE OF G. SREENIVASAN VS DCIT 28 T XMANN.COM 200 (COCH. ) AND ITAT PUNE BENCH IN THE CASE OF MAH ESH NEMI CHANDRA GANESHWADE V ITO 21 TAXMANN.COM 136 (PUNE). IN VIEW OF THIS LEGAL POSITION, THIS CONTENTION IS REJECTED . 13. IN VIEW OF WHAT HAS BEEN DISCUSSED ABOVE, WE AR E OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION U/S 54F O F THE ACT CANNOT BE DENIED TO THE ASSESSEE MERELY ON THE GROUND THAT CONVEYANCE DEED HAS NOT YET BEEN GOT REGISTERED PARTICULARLY W HEN THE ASSESSEE IS PROVED TO BE IN POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY IN QU ESTION OUT OF WHICH SHE WAS ALREADY OWNER IN POSSESSION OF 1/3 RD SHARE SINCE 2008 AFTER MAKING A COMPLETE PAYMENT OF THE SALE CO NSIDERATION TO THE VENDORS AND HAS DULY PROVED HER POSSESSION OVER THE PROPERTY BY WAY OF ELECTRICITY AND WATER CHARGES BILLS. SO, WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE INTO THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT (A) ALLOWING DEDUCTION TO THE ASSESSEE U/S 54F OF T HE ACT, HENCE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THIS 30 TH DAY OF JULY, 2021. SD/- SD/- (ANIL CHATURVEDI) (KULDIP SINGH ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED THE 30 TH DAY OF JULY, 2021. TS ITA NO.4150/DEL./2018 10 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1.APPELLANT 2.RESPONDENT 3.CIT 4.CIT(A)-11, NEW DELHI. 5.CIT(ITAT), NEW DELHI. AR, ITAT NEW DELHI.