Property Sale Income Classified as Long-Term Capital Gain; Appeals Dismissed, Affirming Long-Term Asset Status.

The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, determining that the income from the sale of the property should be assessed as a long-term capital gain. The Tribunal concluded that the assessees acquired the right to obtain conveyance on 8th Feb., 1988, or by 10th July, 1990, thus classifying it as a long-term capital asset. Consequently, the extinguishment of this right upon the sale constituted a long-term capital gain. All three appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed, affirming the classification of the income as a long-term capital gain.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of income from the sale of property as long-term capital gain or short-term capital gain.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Classification of Income from Sale of Property:

The primary issue in these appeals is whether the income from the sale of Flat No. 707, Adishwar Apartment, 34, Firoz Shah Road, New Delhi, should be assessed as long-term capital gain or short-term capital gain.

Factual Background:
- The flat was owned by three assessees: Ms. Mrinalini Thadani (50%), Shri Sharad Thadani (25%), and Shri Manav Thadani (25%). The flat was sold during the assessment year 1996-97.
- The assessees claimed exemption under sections 54/54F, treating the income as long-term capital gain.
- The Assessing Officer (AO) obtained information from the builder, who confirmed that the possession certificate was given on 6th Dec., 1994, leading the AO to classify it as a short-term capital asset.

Arguments and Evidence:
- The assessees argued that the flat was owned by them since 8th Feb., 1988, based on an agreement entered by their father, Late Shri Gullu Thadani.
- They contended that possession for interior work was given on 3rd March, 1992, and thus it was a long-term capital asset.
- The AO, however, concluded that the possession was transferred on 6th Dec., 1994, and payments were made majorly after 3rd March, 1992, implying a short-term capital asset.

Legal Interpretations and Case Laws:
- The CIT(A) and the assessees relied on the definition of "capital asset" under section 2(14), which includes "property of any kind held by an assessee."
- The term "property" was argued to have the widest import, including rights, titles, or interests in the property.
- Various case laws were cited, including:
- Ahmed G.H. Ariff vs. CWT: Defined "property" as a term of the widest import.
- CIT vs. Tata Services Ltd.: Held that the right to obtain conveyance of immovable property is property under section 2(14).
- Sunil Siddharthbhai vs. CIT: Discussed the transfer of property rights.
- CIT vs. Anilaben Upendra Shah: Held that shares in a co-operative housing society are long-term capital assets if held for more than 36 months.

Tribunal's Analysis and Decision:
- The Tribunal considered the rival submissions and the definition of "capital asset" under section 2(14), which includes property of any kind held by an assessee.
- It was noted that the term "property" includes the right to obtain conveyance, which is a valuable right.
- The Tribunal concluded that the assessees acquired the right to obtain conveyance on 8th Feb., 1988, or latest by 10th July, 1990, on the death of Shri Gullu Thadani.
- The Tribunal emphasized that the right to obtain conveyance is a capital asset, and its extinguishment on the sale of the flat constitutes a long-term capital gain.
- The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to compute the income as long-term capital gain instead of short-term capital gain.

Conclusion:
- The Tribunal dismissed all three appeals filed by the Revenue, confirming that the income from the sale of the flat should be assessed as long-term capital gain.

Result:
- All three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed.

---