9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (6) TMI 944X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... first holder. Whereas all payments were made by assessee from his bank account - HELD THAT:- There is no dispute about the date of allotment letter dated 25.09.1997. We find that AO has recorded that at the time of allotment, the assessee paid 6,52,000/-. The assessee vehemently contended that substantial part of the sale consideration was paid from the date of possession. This fact is not disputed by lower authorities. The date of transfer of asset/flat is also not in dispute. We find that in case MadhuKaul v/s. CIT [ 2014 (2) TMI 1117 - PUNJAB HARYANA HIGH COURT] and CIT v/s. S.R. Jayshankar [ 2014 (12) TMI 264 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] held that the date of allotment letter is to be considered to determine the holding period to ascertain the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed 28.04.2014 was served upon the assessee. The case of assessee was re-opened on the basis of information received that assessee has sold a property on 22.07.2008 for a consideration of ₹ 72,00,000/- against the market value at ₹ 1.34 crore, determined by stamp valuation authority. On the basis of such information, The Assessing Officer (AO) recorded the reasons for re-opening by taking view that the case of assessee requires deep investigation. The assessee requestedfor reasons recorded, the reasons recorded were supplied to the assessee on 18.12.2014. In response to the notice under section 148, the assessee filed his return of income on 27.11.2014 declaring income of ₹ 1.35 lakhs and declared Long Term Capital Loss (LT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt of ₹ 6,54,000/- On 25/02/1997 = ₹ 654,000 X 582/305 ₹ 12,47,960/- ₹ 68,51,040/- Less: total cost as per allotment letter ₹ 42,12,000/- minus Advance payment ₹ 654,000/ =₹ 35,58,000/- Indexed cost ₹ 35,58,000/-X 582/406 ₹ 51,00,380/- ₹ 17,50,660/- Less : expenses claimed by the assessee ₹ 7,12,550/- LTCG ₹ 10,29,110/-" 3. On the basis of above working the AO added ₹ 10,29,110/- on account of LTCG. 4. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee contended that the flat was acquired in the year 1996-97. The assessee is a non-resident could not come to Mumbai to register the Conveyance Deed of the property. The conveyance deed of flat was registered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or AY 1997-98 as per the allotment letter. The assessee booked the flat in Joint names and the name of his wife name is mentioned at first holder. Whereas all payments were made by assessee from his bank account. All the payments were verified by the AO during the course of assessment. The payments made by the assessee is not disputed by the AO. The ld. AR submits that the co-ordinate bench of Tribunal in a number of cases held that holding period/acquisition was to be taken from the date of allotment letter, the ld. AR for the assessee relied upon the following decisions: * CIT vs. AnilabenUpendra Shah [262 ITR 657 (Guj.)] * CIT vs. Jindal Panchand Gandhi (Guj.), * NanditaPatodia vs. ITO (Mumbai) [ITA No. 5982/M/2013] , * Anupama A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fact is not disputed by lower authorities. Further, the date of transfer of asset/flat is also not in dispute. We find that the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in MadhuKaul v/s. CIT [363 ITR 54 (P & H)], [Hon'ble Madras High Court in CIT v/s. S.R. Jayshankar [373 ITR 120 (Mad.)], held that the date of allotment letter is to be considered to determine the holding period to ascertain the entitlement of section 54 of the Act. We find that the decision of MadhuKaul v/s. CIT and CIT v/s. S.R. Jayshankar (supra) were followed by co-ordinate bench of Tribunal in NanditaPatodia v/s. ITO and allow the holding period from the date of allotment letter to determine the LTCG. 8. In view of the aforesaid factual and legal discussion, the grounds o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
