2019 (1) TMI 949 - AT - Income Tax

Rectification of mistake u/s 154 - Tribunal has held that all the judgements cited by AR of assessee are distinguishable - nature of capital gain only whether the same is short term capital gain or long term capital gains - Held that - There is an apparent mistake in the Tribunal order because it has been simply stated that various judgements referred to by the assessee are all distinguishable on facts without any specific reasoning and basis as to how these judgements are distinguishable on facts and in course of hearing of the M.P., it was the submission that at least in the judgment rendered in the case of Vinod Kumar Jain Vs. CIT &Ors. 2010 (9) TMI 850 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT the facts were at least apparently similar and hence, in our considered opinion, there is apparent mistake in the Tribunal order while deciding this issue in respect of holding period of the asset in question on sale of which the resulting capital gain was declared by the assessee as long term capital gain but was assessed by the AO as short term capital gain and in the process, claim of deduction u/s 54 was also disallowed. Hence, we recall this Tribunal order for limited purpose of deciding this issue afresh in respect of holding period of asset in question i.e. the flat at Hiranandani Meadows which was sold by the assessee through registered sale agreement dated 29.09.2009 and which was purchased by the assessee through registered purchase deed dated 06.03.2009 although as per the assessee, the said flat was allotted on 22.02.2006 and full payment was also made and therefore, the allotment date has to be taken as date of acquisition. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of holding period for capital gains tax purposes based on the date of acquisition of a property.

Analysis:
The Appellate Tribunal considered a case where the assessee contended that the Tribunal's decision was based on an incorrect premise regarding the holding period of the asset in question. The assessee argued that the judgments cited were not distinguishable on facts, referring to a specific judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana. The Tribunal noted that the judgment mentioned by the assessee had similar facts to the present case, indicating an apparent mistake in the Tribunal order. The Tribunal decided to recall the order for a fresh decision on the holding period of the asset, particularly a flat at Hiranandani Meadows, to determine whether the capital gain should be treated as short term or long term. The Tribunal emphasized that the order was being recalled solely for this limited purpose and both parties would be given an opportunity to present their arguments.

The Tribunal highlighted that the initial decision was flawed as it lacked specific reasoning on how the cited judgments were distinguishable on facts. The Tribunal acknowledged the similarity in facts between the present case and the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana, which supported the assessee's argument. By recalling the order, the Tribunal aimed to rectify the error in the decision-making process and ensure a fair assessment of whether the capital gain should be categorized as short term or long term. The Tribunal's decision to allow the assessee's Motion Petition (M.P.) indicated a willingness to reconsider the issue based on the new perspective provided by the cited judgment and the arguments presented by both parties.

Overall, the Tribunal's analysis focused on correcting the apparent mistake in the initial order by reassessing the holding period of the asset in question and determining the nature of the capital gain. The decision to recall the order for a fresh decision underscored the importance of ensuring a just and reasoned outcome based on a comprehensive evaluation of the relevant legal principles and factual circumstances.