9. In light of the discussion, we consider that the sale agreement is not registered, the sale may sell the specific service on the basis of the unregant agreement, in accordance with the law, as filed by the Hon`ble Delhi High Court in Devinder Singh Vs. Hari Singh (decision 26.04.2017) and Hon`ble M.P. High Court in Akshay Doogad Vs. Dr. Laxmanrao Dhole (decision 18.08.2015). As explained in paragraph 5 and 6 above, we allow, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the judge`s appeal and the direct granting of the exemption, etc. 54 of the law. 4. We heard competing complaints and examined the facts and circumstances of the case. We find that the business appointments indicated there are not in dispute and are therefore not repeated for reasons of brevity. The expert`s application for an exemption from his capital gain, pursuant to section 54, paragraph 1, of the Act, was rejected by AO on the grounds that the notator had not purchased the dwelling within one year of the date of the sale of the former asset. In this case, the old house was transferred by the expert on 27.12.2011, when she had purchased a new apartment on 04.10.2010.
Thus, the new asset was acquired more than a year before the date of the transaction for the old building. For this reason, the AO did not grant benefits and 54 of the law. On appeal, Ld. CIT (A) upheld the AO`s decision. Before us, the Ld. AR argued that, under the provision in Section 2 (47) of the Act, which defines the term “transaction” which has been defined as inclusive, and according to that definition, if an asset right is in progress, such an extinction would involve the transfer of assets. He therefore argued that the execution of the sale agreement had terminated a right in favour of the purchaser of the property and a specific right concerning the former residence which the auditor had benefited from and that, therefore, the agreement of 16.09.2011 should have been considered the date of the transfer and not as the registration date of 27.12.2011 of the AO/Ld.CIT (A). For this proposal, the Ld. AR cited the supreme court decision of Sanjiv Lal in Civil Appeal No. 5899-5900 of 2014 (SC), which is placed from pages 1 to 16 of the paper book (PB). “1. A document to be registered, if not registered, is not admissible as evidence under Section 49 of the Registration Act.