Shareholding period dispute requires fresh verification before classifying gains as long-term or short-term capital gains.

Where the dates of acquisition and transfer of shares were disputed, the Tribunal held that the period of holding could not be determined conclusively on the existing record. It noted inconsistencies in the evidence and directed fresh verification of the share certificate, transfer certificate, and related material before deciding whether the resulting gain was long-term capital gain or short-term capital gain. The matter was therefore remanded to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration in accordance with law, and the appeal succeeded only for statistical purposes.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the assessment required fresh verification of the dates of purchase and transfer of shares and the consequent period of holding for determining whether the gain was long-term capital gain or short-term capital gain.

Analysis: The assessee produced share certificate and transfer certificate showing transfer of shares on an earlier date, while the revenue record relied upon below indicated inconsistency regarding the date on which the assessee became a shareholder. As the factual position on purchase, transfer and holding period was not conclusively established on the material before the Tribunal, the issue needed verification in light of the documentary evidence and the applicable CBDT guidance on determination of holding period.

Conclusion: The issue was remanded to the Assessing Officer for verification and fresh decision in accordance with law.

Final Conclusion: The assessee obtained a remand on the substantive capital gains issue, and the appeal succeeded only for statistical purposes.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the date of acquisition and transfer of shares is disputed and the period of holding cannot be conclusively determined on the existing record, the matter must be verified afresh before deciding whether the gain is long-term or short-term.

---