TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (12) TMI 54
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and income from other sources. The assessee filed return of income of income on 7.6.2007 declaring total income at Rs.1,63,307/-. Scrutiny assessment was completed under section 143(3) read with section 148 of the I.T. Act on 30.12.2010 accepting the income returned. The Commissioner of Income Tax under section 263 of the I.T. Act held that the Order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) read with section 148 in assessee's case is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The facts are that the assessee sold the house admeasuring 150 sq. yards, bearing No. 6-3-663/14/1, Somajiguda, Hyderabad on 22.03.2007 to Smt. G. Neelima Devi w/o. G. Panduranga Rao vide Registered Document No. 639/2007 for a consideration ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r it is contended that all relevant documents are already furnished and relevant information was already submitted before the assessing officer. It was further argued that the assessing officer has already considered the information and passed the assessment order. In view of this it was objected that by making change of opinion an order cannot be passed u/s. 263. 6. The Commissioner of Income Tax held that the property at Somajiguda, Hyderabad was purchased by the assessee on 6.6.2005 and the same was sold on 22.3.2007 and as such, the property was held by the assessee for a total period of less than 3 years precisely for 21 months 16 days only and therefore, the property is becomes a short term capital asset and the gain on sale of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assessee is in appeal before us and submitted that the assessment has been completed by the Assessing Officer after due verification and accepting the explanation given by the assessee. The assessee relied on Malabar Industrial Company Ltd. vs. CIT 243 ITR 83 (SC) and the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Spectra Shares & Scrips Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (2013) 354 ITR 35 (AP). 8. The learned D.R. submitted that the capital gains is not long term capital gain and only short capital gain as held by the Commissioner of Income Tax and hence order passed under section 263 is justified. 9. In the re-joinder, the learned A.R. submitted the computation of short term capital gain as follows : Sale consideration received on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ubmitted before us, we conclude that the CIT had validly exercised the jurisdiction u/s 263. 12. But we do not accept the conclusion of the CIT working out the short term capital gains at Rs. 16,77,620/- or holding that the Assessee is not entitled to deduction u/s 54. He has not appreciated that for determining whether an asset is long term or short term capital asset, the period of `holding' the asset is relevant and not merely the date of registered conveyance. Under certain circumstances, an immovable property can be considered to have been transferred even without a registered conveyance deed (Please see Mysore Minerals v CIT 239 ITR 775 SC). Hence the period of holding of the asset by the Assessee has to be reassessed based on the ....