Heard Miss Veena Mandlik, counsel for appellant, on admission. This appeal under s. 260A of IT Act is directed against order of Tribunal dt. 8th Sept., 2006, passed in ITA No. 184/Ind/2000 for asst. yr. 1996-97. Before Tribunal, Revenue had filed appeal against order of CIT(A), Indore relating to return of income for asst. yr. 1997-98, on ground that CIT(A) erred in deleting addition of Rs. 11,70,233 made by AO on account of disallowance of exemption claimed under s. 54F by assessee. It was not disputed that assessee had net capital gain of Rs. 13,21,769, but on account of purchase of residential house, assessee claimed sum of Rs. 11,70,233 as deduction. On appeal to Tribunal deduction disallowed was allowed and it is against said order of Tribunal granting, allowance of Rs. 11,17,233 that present appeal has been filed on following question of law: "Whether Tribunal was justified in holding that mere agreement to transfer is sufficient for transfer of property overlooking provisions of Transfer of Property Act and Registration Act, 1908? precise submission of learned counsel is that in year 1995-96 assessee had already shown purchase of flat in sum of Rs. 7,71,525 and, therefore, assessee was not entitled to claim Rs. 11,70,233 under s. 54F of IT Act. Tribunal has observed that insofar as flat was concerned, assessee was only power of attorney holder and before capital gains arose flat had already been sold to M/s K.J. Agencies and M/s Sanghvi Farm & Nursery and eventually flat was transferred to Tejasvi Grah Nirman Co-operative Society. It was also observed that said flat had never been registered in name of assessee and documents pertaining to these sales had already been brought on record. Tribunal observed that as on date of capital gain accruing on shares, assessee was not possessed of any residential accommodation and, therefore, he was entitled to deduction in accordance with provisions made in s. 54F. In this view of matter Tribunal has dismissed appeal of Revenue. Before us, it has not been disputed that flat in question had never been registered in name of assessee. assessee was merely power of attorney holder and conveyance deeds brought on record were clearly indicative of transfer of flat prior to capital gain. Under these circumstances, it could not be said that assessee was already possessed of residential house and could not, therefore, have claimed deduction of Rs. 11,70,233. findings of Tribunal are findings of fact and conclusions arrived at on due appreciation thereof. Under these circumstances, neither on facts nor on any question of law order of Tribunal suffers from any infirmity. This appeal is, accordingly, dismissed summarily. *** COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX v. PANKAJ J. SANGHVI